PRE 2010 DOCS41s._
Village of Fridley, Minn. o
BUILDING PERMIT N'
Date ..........
Owner ,. .!� ...
Address �r��?:1,kg
'1327
..
Builder. ..'! ...
Address :J . ! ................
1.''�LOIOIfO� BT_LIG
No. . bn.'.�1� ..... Street ...d... .... `�: t,� ' 16� �. ? .. ... Pa Lot
Lot .............. Block .................. kddition or Sub -Division �� . . i•'.'
Corner Lot ........... Inside Lot ........... Setback ......... Sideyard .............................
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
To e Us ,
,
....... .... Front .. Depth 4�....
.... Height ........ Sq. Ft. ..... Cu. Ft. ........
as....... y ......nt .. Depth Height ........ Sq. Ft. ......... Cu. Ft ........
Type of Construct io "'' Est Cost 1j 'I ......• • • • • • • • • To be Completed ..................
In consideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the building described above, I agree to do
the proposed work in accordance with the description above set forth and in compliance with all provisions of
ordinances of the village of Fridley.
. ...
payment ,p y
In consideration of the a ent of a fee of $:'� .. '�.� .. permit is hereby granted to �......... G
....................... to construct the building or addition as described above. This permit granted upon
the express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agents, employees and workmen, In all work
done in, around and upon said building, or any part thereof, shall conform in all respects to the ordinances of
Fridley, Minnesota regarding location, construction, alteration, maintenance, repair and moving of buildings with-
in the village limits and this permit may be revoked at any tim on violation of any of the provisions of said
ordinances.
Aeor—
�bg Inspecto
NOTICE:
This permit does not cover the construction, Installation or alteration for wiring, plumbing, gas heating,
sewer or water. Be sure to see th"uilding Inspector for separate permits for " Items.
City of Fridley
Application for Plumbing and Gas Fitting Penh
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Number, Kind and Location of Fixtures
!of
y. N in
w
Z • • WATER HTR.
F N GAS ELEG
3 i7
5
� �
�'n
3
o
t�
3
�
C�9 0
Base
1st
2nd
3rd
_
4th
• Future Connection Openings
Connected withI
Sewer �
New Fixture, Old Openings
Cesspool
PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE
PLUMBING FIXTURE RATES: NO. RATE TOTAL
Number Fixtures x $1.50
Future Fixture Opening ................ x 1.20
New Fixture Old Opening .............. x 1.00
Catch Basin ............................ x 3.25
Water Heater (Up to 200,000 BTC) ...... x 2.00
New Ground Run Old Bldg. ............ —� x 3.25
GAS FITTING FEES: NO. RATE TOTAL
1st 3 Fixtures .......................... x $1.50 $
Additional Fixtures ..................... x .50 $
Gas Range to 200,000 BTU .............. x 2.00 $
REPAIRS & ALTERATIONS—Refer to Code
Descriptionf.✓?�!�!�!'.... .7X Vf..T <!t q....$
TOTAL FEE $
Dept. of Bldgs. Phone SU 4-7470
City of Fridley:
The undersigned hereby .makes application for a permit for the work herein
specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinances
and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts
and representations stated in this application are true and correct.
Fridley, 1Vlinn �1960
��jj /.a
Owner /O4, • s ��'
Kind of Building / -
Used as
To be completed about
Estimated Cost, $ �7
Old—New. Building Permit No Permit No._�a�fT
Signe_____�✓�-�
a
By .
Business Phone No
ROUGH
FINAL
42 2M 7-59
City of Fridley
Applicathm for Phmbbg and Gas Fktkg ftmh
Dept. of Bldgs. Phone S®0-3430
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Number, Kind and Location of Fixtures
= UP, `M41P a 15Fji
EEEEME1
■EENNE1
NEEM■■'
■ENMEE1
PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE
Sewer [:]
PLUMBING FIXTURE RATES:
NO. RATE TOTAL
Number Fixtures ................
x $2.00
$
Future Fixture Opening ...........
x $1.50
$--
_New
New Fixture Old Opening ..........
x $1.50
$
Catch Basin ....................
x $3.25
$
Water Heater ;Up to 99,000 BTU) ....
x $3.00
$
New Ground Run Old Bldg.........
x $3.25
$
Electric Water Heater ..............
x $2.00
=
GAS FITTING FEES:
NO. RATE TOTAL
1st 3 Fixtures ...............
x $2.00
$
Additional F9xtures ..................
x $ .75
$
Gas Range to 199.000 BTU.. .
x $5.00
$
REPAIRS & ALTERATIONS—Rater to Code
Description ..................
TOTAL FEE $
City of Fridley:
The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herei
specified, agreeing to do $11 work in strict accordance with the City Ordinance
and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the fact
and representations stated in this application are true and correct
_ Fridley, �r 196
Owner
Kind of Building
Used as
To be completed about � 0 Z C)
Estimated Cost, $ C�
Old—New. Building Permit No. Permit No. v'
Signed
By
Business Phone o a`" f — �S -
ROUGH
N° 5179
Original
Permit for PL RING AND GAS FITT G
N.B. When work covered by this permit is ready, the Plumbing Ordinance requires that request for Permit I
Fee
inspection shall be phoned in to the plumbing Inspector, 560-3450 giving number of this permit.,
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
d O
d
Z
Number, Sind and Location of Fixtures
City of Fridley C;20,19�d
Stories
f m
O
Z
x m
Z
m
x
m y Z Z
O
3 O Z
U Z
Z m
U
J
�
WATER HTR.
(()) LL O
U QI
C J
f LL
F m
O K
(3A8
a
O O¢
F M
9
Connected with
Gas Piping for Openings
Permission is hereby granted to do the plumbing and
gas fitting in the building described in the statenfent hereto attached, upon the express condition that
the person to whom this permit is granted, and his agents, employees and workmen, in the plumbing
or gas fitting of said building shall conform in all respects to ordinances of the City of Fridley, and
this permit may be revoked at any time upon the violation of any of the provisions of said ordinances.
By Order Of The Inspector Of Buildings
Roughing in Inspection Date
Inspector.
Final Inspection Date
Inspector.
az 11M—"9 -V
Location -�GCdJ
Kind of Buildings . !1 A.AnV
Used as
To be Completed ,1920
Estimated Cost
Old Nem. Building Permit No.
Date
Inspector of Buildings.
d
d O
d
Z
6 C 0
J Z
d a
K
a O
m k
m y
d 0.
m Z
d d
� U
U
7
m F
m
tll
>•• F O LL
(()) LL O
U QI
C J
f LL
0 4
O K
(3A8
ELEC .
Basement
tat
2nd
WOO
3rd
4th
Connected with
Gas Piping for Openings
Permission is hereby granted to do the plumbing and
gas fitting in the building described in the statenfent hereto attached, upon the express condition that
the person to whom this permit is granted, and his agents, employees and workmen, in the plumbing
or gas fitting of said building shall conform in all respects to ordinances of the City of Fridley, and
this permit may be revoked at any time upon the violation of any of the provisions of said ordinances.
By Order Of The Inspector Of Buildings
Roughing in Inspection Date
Inspector.
Final Inspection Date
Inspector.
az 11M—"9 -V
Location -�GCdJ
Kind of Buildings . !1 A.AnV
Used as
To be Completed ,1920
Estimated Cost
Old Nem. Building Permit No.
Date
Inspector of Buildings.
(jtu
6
J
OT 07-5 U`22Y
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., PRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571.3450
OBSTRUCTION:
Lot Block
Addition
7' D�774Q K,44ftiw�sa
Property Ouner-.address
17Z L 41, Ph jj,.
RECORD OF CO`,'MJNJCATII�:
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
Ia'f
R
�
s j
i
7
(jtu
6
J
OT 07-5 U`22Y
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., PRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571.3450
OBSTRUCTION:
Lot Block
Addition
7' D�774Q K,44ftiw�sa
Property Ouner-.address
17Z L 41, Ph jj,.
RECORD OF CO`,'MJNJCATII�:
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
SUBJECT
P
City of Fridley
2623 9\
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
BUILDING
PERMIT
P
i t
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
'
r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
1 i
NUMBER
REV
DATE
PAGE Of
APPROVED BY
= CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
612-571-3450
910-F15
6/15/98
JOB ADDRESS 172 Logan Parkway
1 LEGAL
LOT NO.
BLOCK
TRACTOR ADDITION
SEE ATTACHED
DESCR.
20
1
Oak Creek Addition
SHEET
2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS
ZIP PHONE
William Stevenson 172 Logan Parkway NE
3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS
ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO.
Meyers Construction Co 11430 Jon uil St NW Coon Rapids,
MN 55434 422-8921
4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS
ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO.
20093588
5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS
ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO.
8 USE OF BUILDING
Residential
7 CLASS OF WORK
❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION? REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE
8 DESCRIBE WORK
Reroof House & Garage (24 Sq) Tear -off
9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO
STIPULATIONS
Underlayment must comply with the State Building Code.
TYPE OF CONST.
OCCUPANCY GROUP
OCCUPANCY LOAD
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING,
VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
ZONING
SQ. FT.
CU. FT.
AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 80 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION
OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT
ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
NO. DWLG. UNITS
OFFSTREET PARKING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION
1
ISTALLS GARAGES
AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS
VALUATION
SURTAX
AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED
WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT
$2,001
$1.00
DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PERMIT FEE
SAC CHARGE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON-
Fire SC $2.00
STRU TIN OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
$74.75
eft-bJ
PLAN CHECK FEE
TOTAL FEE
X'P AAZ:�I,
AaA j
License SC
$5.00
$82.75
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT ROR AUTHORI fDAGENT IOATEI
WHEN PROPERL ALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
o
BLDC1fINSP
m ATE
S.GNATURE OF OWNER )IF OWNER BUILDER) MATE)
NEW _--tNJ Effective 1/1/98
ADDN [ ] CITY OF FRIDLEY
ALTER [ ] SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
ConstructionAddress: Z,0 9c- 0 P__Q Q k Uy �_ lz
Legal Description:
Owner Name & Address: I (L c, r_11 5 5y?,5=jY.5 Tel. #
Contractor: ,in r— Y Ek S �\ ®f l� S ' r c) C� (o P � MN LICENSE #2-0099-988
Address: )L/ 0 �on Q to l S7` %Y U(1 C -a,) N RR Tel. # 9:
Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the
lot, with the proposed construction drawn on it to scale.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT
LIVING A40 Length Width Height Sq. Ft.
GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft.
DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft.
OTHER: C�/
Construction Type: / Pyr Estimated Cost: $
(Fee Schedule, on Back)
Driveway Curb Cut Width Needed: Ft. + 6 Ft = Ft x $ _ $
DATE:Co —1�-,90 APPLICANT: Tel. #
STIPULATIONS:
CITY USE ONLY
Permit Fee
$ %S
Fee Schedule on Reverse Side
Fire Surcharge
$
.001 of Permit Valuation (1/10th%)
State Surcharge
$
$.50/$1,000 Valuation
SAC Charge
$
$1000 per SAC Unit
License Surcharge
$• 00
$5.00 (State Licensed Residential Contractors)
Driveway Escrow
$
Alt. "A" or Alt. "B" Above
Erosion Control
$
$450.00 Conservation Plan Review
Park Fee
$
Fee Determined by Engineering
Sewer Main Charge
$
Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary [ ]
TOTAL
STIPULATIONS:
I11I111V11111MM11I111I111V#1
Record ID 2419527
2023341.008
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) APPEALS COMMISSION
PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
CITY OF FRIDLEY )
In the Matter of:
Owner: William B. Stevenson and Anne M. Stevenson
The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on the
6th day of July, 2011, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the
following described property:
To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize the
existing non -conforming setback of the existing house, legally described as Lot 20, Block 1,
Oak Creek Addition, subject to easement of record, generally located at 172 Logan Parkway
NE.
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons:
Approved with 2 stipulations. See Action Taken Letter dated 7-12-11.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CLERK
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY
I, Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I
have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in
my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the
County of Anoka on the day of 12011.
DRAFTED BY:�����
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
P
Debra A. Skogen, City CIe#k = ®o
,
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within
that period.
O
G7YOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
July 12, 2011
William and Anne Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway NE
Fridley MN 55432
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stevenson:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved the Variance,
VAR #11-01, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to
recognize the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house, legally described
as Lot 20, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, subject to easement of record, generally
located at 172 Logan Parkway NE.
Approval of this variance is contingent upon the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction
of the addition.
2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing
house and finished with complementary siding and color scheme.
You have one year from the date of the City Council action to initiate construction. If you
cannot begin construction during this time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at
least three weeks prior to the expiration date.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3595.
SS/ib
cc: Variance File
Mary Fitz
Stacy Stromberg
ANOKA COt'NTY MINNESOTA
DOCUment No.: 2023341.008 ABSTRACT .
I hereby certify that the within instrument was riled in this
office for record on: 07'19:'2011 1:08:00 PM
Fees;Taxes In the Aniount of, $46.00
LARRY W, DALIEN
Anoka County Property Tal
_administrator/Recorder,Registrar of Titles
JMH, Deputy
Record ID: 2419527
G7YOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
July 12, 2011
William and Anne Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway NE
Fridley MN 55432
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stevenson:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved the Variance,
VAR #11-01, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to
recognize the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house, legally described
as Lot 20, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, subject to easement of record, generally
located at 172 Logan Parkway NE.
Approval of this variance is contingent upon the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction
of the addition.
2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing
house and finished with complementary siding and color scheme.
You have one year from the date of the City Council action to initiate construction. If you
cannot begin construction during this time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at
least three weeks prior to the expiration date.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3595.
SS/ib
cc: Variance File
Mary Fitz
Stacy Stromberg
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 6, 2011
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Sielaff called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Del Jenkins
Blaine Jones
Brad Sielaff
Matthew Brown
Christopher Anderson
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
William and Anne Stevenson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 3, 2010
MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the minutes.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Consideration of a Variance, VAR #11-01, by William and Anne Stevenson to
reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize
the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house, generally located at 172
Logan Parkway.
MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Anderson.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:13 P.M.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioners would like to build a 15
by 20 foot addition at the southeast corner of their home. The property is zoned R-1, single-
family residential. The setbacks for that district are: front, 25 feet; side, 10 feet for the living
area and 5 feet for the attached garage and, if you are on a corner lot, the front yard would be 25
feet and 17.5 on the secondary street. The rear yard would be one-quarter of the lot depth less
than 25 feet or not greater than 40 feet.
Mr. Hickok stated the Stevenson home meets all of the required setbacks but for the setback on
the west side yard. This setback should be 17.5 feet and is 9.4 inches. The property was platted
as Lot 20, Oak Creek Addition and was adopted in 1950. Interior lots at that time were to be a
minimum of 75—feet wide and comer lots were to be 80 feet wide. In 1952 a portion of Lot 19,
just to the west of the subject parcel was deeded to allow a roadway be installed. The
Stevensons' lot was not intended to be a comer lot but now would be with the road extension
over Lot 19.
Mr. Hickok stated the Stevenson home was built in 1955. The record is not clear as to what the
City's discussion was but the action of allowing the home to be placed where it was tells current
staff they must have chose not to hold the home builders to the 17.5 foot standard. The City
action was likely the result of the lot being platted as an interior lot and then becoming a corner
lot.
Mr. Hickok stated it is unclear how the setback actually became 9.4 rather than 10 feet. Current
staff speculates the footings of the foundation were set back an ample distance from the
southwest corner to the west property line. The masonry contractor then improperly calculated
how close a true 90 -degree angle would come at the north comer over a distance of 30 feet since
the west lot line angles east as it heads north.
Mr. Hickok stated one of the reasons they have not been able to get together for a while as a
Commission is State Legislature was reviewing some fairly significant legislation relative to
variances. What came of that is the following: the City is able to grant variances again and there
is clear direction as to what cities should expect when considering variances. The final outcome
of the legislative act included the following two key things:
(1) It made the County and City variance standards language match. In other words,
at one time the City language said you were to look for an undue hardship; a
physical characteristic of the land that creates an undue hardship and causes them
not to be able to meet the standards. It is imposed. The County language said,
what would be the practical difficulties? You would look for the practical
difficulties of meeting this standard which the County would impose. What this
legislative act did is make these two sets of language match. The Legislature
chose the County definition, and the words "practical difficulties" over undue
hardship. Both the City and the County language is the same. Instead of looking
for the undue hardship, now they are focusing on the words, "practical
difficulties." What were those practical difficulties of meeting those setback
standards in this case be?
(2) The second thing this legislative act did is reemphasize the importance of solid
findings of fact that are documented.
2
Mr. Hickok stated tonight he is going to take the Commission through kind of a question and
answer process. He asked them to complete thoughts on this, decide one way or the other. That
would be helpful and create the record that is necessary and would match what the Legislature
hoped of this City and of this appeals action.
Mr. Hickok stated the findings of fact should answer these questions:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plans?
• Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Mr. Hickok stated some of those practical difficulties as defined by the owner would be the
surveyors indicated that when this property was platted in 1950, there was no thru street where
Riverview Terrace now exists. It was most likely not considered a corner.
Mr. Hickok stated staffs recommendation based on their analysis and all things considered,
including the legislative act of this summer, would show approval of a variance for the following
reasons: practical difficulties do exist. Riverview Terrace was extended after the subject
property was developed was probably a key to all of this. The approval would recognize the
non -conformity that is created.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends that if the variance is granted the following stipulations be
applied:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction of
the addition.
2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house
and finished with complementary siding and color scheme.
William Stevenson, Petitioner, stated they are in the situation where their property is non-
conforming and they cannot make any improvements. He might have a couple of questions
regarding the process of a contractor gets the building permits as mentioned in the stipulations.
Also, regarding matching the siding with the house, he is planning on putting all new siding and
windows on the house as well.
Chairperson Sielaff asked Mr. Stevenson whether he understands the stipulations?
Mr. Stevenson replied, they actually have cedar siding on their house that has been painted over
and he would like some new vinyl siding and windows.
Commissioner Jones stated they are not saying that he has to do it a certain way but, at the end,
the house and addition have to appear one in the same from their view.
MOTION by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Jenkins.
3
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 7:17 P.M.
Chairperson Sielaff stated he does not see any problem with this.
Commissioner Jones stated he has no problems at all with granting the variance. It is more they
make sure and dot the is and cross the t's.
Commissioner Jenkins stated he has no problems with the variance.
Commissioner Anderson stated he has no problems.
Mr. Hickok asked the Commission whether the variance is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the ordinance?
Chairperson Sielaff replied, yes, what it is doing is taking what the State is doing. It is State
law incorporated into it, and this meets that.
Commissioner Jenkins replied, he agrees.
Commissioner Jones replied, he also agrees.
Chairperson Sielaff replied, yes, they all agree.
Mr. Hickok asked the Commission whether the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan as they see it?
Chairperson Sielaff replied, yes.
Commissioner Jenkins replied, yes.
Commissioner Anderson replied, yes.
Commissioner Jones replied, he did not think they are making any changes. This area will still
be single-family residential.
Mr. Hickok stated that is exactly right and, although it is close to the river, it is not impacting
the shoreline ordinance at all.
Chairperson Sielaff stated it complies with how it is zoned.
Mr. Hickok asked, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Chairperson Sielaff replied, yes, it would.
4
Mr. Hickok asked, are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the
landowner?
Commissioner Jones replied, the road really going through created part of it but then also the
fact that when it was originally built, it looks to him if the guy would have just shifted that one
corner over 6 or 8 inches he would have been just fine, but he thought the lot line was straighter
and that was done in 1955.
Chairperson Sielaff stated and that was not the current landowner.
Commissioner Jones asked the petitioners when did they buy the house?
Mr. Stevenson replied, 1991.
Mr. Hickok asked will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Chairperson Sielaff replied, no, he did not see anything.
Commissioner Jones replied, no.
Commissioner Brown replied, no.
Commissioner Jenkins replied, no.
Commissioner Anderson replied, no.
MOTION by Commissioner Jones approving Variance, VAR #11-01, by William and Anne
Stevenson to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize
the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house, generally located at 172 Logan
Parkway with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction of
the addition.
2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house
and finished with complementary siding and color scheme.
Seconded by Commissioner Brown.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Mr. Hickok stated Council has most recently reviewed an ordinance proposed by Parks and
Recreation Department relative to tree preservation on public -owned property.
5
Mr. Hickok stated the senior center that was being built on Old Central has been given a
Certificate of Occupancy. There was the other project approved for the Old Sandee's site. They
are hearing now more than they have for a long time, engineers and architects and folks there
preparing to submit for a permit on that project.
Mr. Hickok stated the HRA has continued to purchase homes. There are a couple of homes they
have purchased. They have the scattered site housing program wherein some cases they
purchase properties that are able to be fixed up but oftentimes they are purchasing properties that
the market would not want, are beyond repair.
Chairperson Sielaff asked, are those foreclosed properties?
Mr. Hickok replied, foreclosed properties, vacant properties, that are now bank held. Mr. Bolin
and the HRA have a couple more homes ready to be demolished which opens up opportunities
for new homes, new investments in neighborhoods to happen. The Gateway Northeast
properties are now cleared and seeded. This year the HRA will be spending time and money
marketing the site for future development. ,
Mr. Hickok stated the CITGO station is another thing a lot of people ask about. You have all of
the block to the south demolished, and it looks pretty nice and the CITGO is left there. A lot of
questions are being asked about it. The way the HRA is accustomed to purchasing properties
and did the entire three blocks of Gateway Northeast is, they would get an appraisal and they
would offer if they were still interested in buying once the values were known. First, those
properties owners had to indicate an interest in selling and a willingness to allow an appraisal to
be done and, once the appraisal would come back, the HRA would offer the appraised price. If
they were interested, that is what it would sell for. If not interested, there would be no
obligation; the HRA would move on.
Mr. Hickok stated the CITGO station was appraised at a time were gas stations were still going
too high, and the appraised price was far higher than the real value of that property. To be fair to
that owner and fair to the City's process, they were not going to offer them something other than
the appraised price and therefore the HRA passed on buying it. They have had some subsequent
discussions with the owner just to see whether they are going to get the tanks out of the ground
required by the law, going to keep up on the maintenance, etc. The owner has indicated an
interest in possibly some sort of a future sale of the property.
Commissioner Jones asked whether there has been any movement on the Cub site?
Mr. Hickok stated, yes, they have signed their Letter of Intent with Cub and have decided on the
footprint they want to go with. They intend by the end of August to have a signed lease with
Cub and intend to have a final version of the lease to City staff for the liquor store. They would
start on the inside of Cub Foods first and would likely start in January. The one thing different
with the new plan is Cub will be able to stay where it is at and stay open during reconstruction.
Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Hickok regarding the new rule used tonight on the variance
request, does it apply to industrial, commercial, as well as residential variance requests?
G
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it does.
3. OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Commissioner Jones seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adjourn the
meeting.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
f'%7• c�Q c-�o2
Denise M. Johnson U"
Recording Secretary
7
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR #11-01 July 6, 2011
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
William and Anne Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway NE
Fridley MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance to reduce the side yard setback
Existing Zoning:
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Location:
172 Logan Parkway
Size:
14,810 sq. ft. .34 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: City Park & P
E: Single Family & R-1
S: Single Family & R-1
W: Riverview Terrace & ROW
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Section 205.07.3.1)(2)(c)((1)) requires a side
yard setback of seventeen and one-half (17
1/2 ) feet for corner lots.
Zoning History:
1950 — Lot is platted.
1955 — House and garage are constructed.
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 20, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Logan Parkway provides access to the
property.
Physical Characteristics:
Typical suburban lot and landscaping.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson are seeking a variance to
reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from
17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize the existing non-
conforming setback of the existing house. The
petitioner's home is located at 172 Logan Parkway.
SUMMARY OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULITIES
"The surveyors indicated that when this property
was platted in 1950 there was no through street
where Riverview Terrace now exists, so it was most
likely not considered a corner lot."
- Will and Anne Stevenson
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this variance
request.
■ Practical difficulties exist — Riverview Terrace
was extended after subject property was
developed.
■ Request will recognize an existing non-
conformity.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council —July 25, 2011
Aerial of Property
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
VAR #11-01
REQUEST
The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson are seeking a
variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner
lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize the existing
non -conforming setback of the existing house. The
petitioner's home is located at 172 Logan Parkway.
The recognition of this non -conforming setback will -
allow the petitioner to construct a living space
addition on the back of their existing house.
Recognition of this non -conforming setback is
required before a building permit can be issued for the
proposed addition. v
M,
RECENT CHANGE IN VARIANCE LEGISLATION 1" ' — t- --bit i f L -Irl'"
„W
As you may already be aware of, there has been a recent change in variance legislation. Provided in
your packet is a memo from Scott Hickok, Community Development Director to William Burns, City
Manager and the Community Development Staff regarding this change. Please review the memo to
understand how the change will affect how variances can be granted. As he articulates in the memo,
the essence of the change is to match the way Cities grant variances to the way Counties grant
variances. The new legislation for Cities will rely on variances to be granted by showing "practical
difficulties" rather than "undue hardship".
In addition, Scott points out that the City's policy of reviewing "similar type variances" and not making a
recommendation to the Appeals Commission and Council if a "similar" variance has been granted is a
practice the City should end. Though it is a good idea to create some consistency, each variance should
really be granted based on its own unique circumstances. As a result from now on, staff will not have a
"no recommendation" but will either make a recommendation for approval or denial of a variance.
ANALYSIS
The property is zoned R-1 Single
;.
Family as are all surrounding
v
'Ot"
properties. The subject
°4'
property is located on the
aty
corner of Riverview Terrace and
`
Logan Parkway. The subject
property was platted as Lot 20,ROAD
-- -=
Oak Creek Addition in 1950.
When Oak Creek Addition was
platted the subject property
wasn't a corner lot, as Lot 19
existing to the west, see copy of
plat map to the right. In 1952,
part of Lot 19 was deeded to the City for roadway purposes. According to building permit records, the
existing house and garage were constructed in 1955. Though the proposed roadway was deeded to the
City in 1952, it wasn't constructed until 1961. As a result, it can be assumed that when the house was
constructed in 1955, it was built to single family interior lot standards. As a result, it is currently
deficient is meeting the side yard setback requirement for a corner lot.
City code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback on corner lots in the R-1, Single Family zoning district. The
petitioner is seeking to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 17.5 ft. to 9.3 ft. to recognize
the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house. The petitioner would like to construct a 15
ft. by 20 ft. addition off the back of the existing home. This addition will be used as additional living
space and will comply with all setback requirements.
City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners.
PRACTICIAL DIFFICULITES
To help guide and eliminate the potential for subjectivity, the League of Minnesota Cities has published
a summary document which points to a structure for finding of fact that cities will be required to adopt
with each application. Those facts and how they apply to this property are below:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance?
o At the time the house was constructed, it met the intent of the ordinance as it was
considered an interior lot. As a result of Lot 19 being deeded to the City for roadway
purposes, it left the subject
property's side yard setback
non -conforming.
Is the variance consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan?
o The Comprehensive Plan
guides this property as
residential, which is how the
property is being used; as a
result it is consistent with the
Plan.
Does the proposal put the property to
use in a reasonable manner?
o The existing use of the
property and the proposed
addition is considered a
reasonable use. The proposed addition will meet all necessary setback requirements
and will not increase the existing non -conforming setback.
Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner?
o Unique circumstances do exist on this property as a result of it being developed prior to
Riverview Terrace being constructed to extend to Logan Parkway, therefore, making
the side yard setback non -conforming.
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
o The non -conforming setback will not be expanded, so the essential character will not be
altered.
SUMMARY OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULITIES AS DEFINED BY THE PETITIONER
"The surveyors indicated that when this property was platted in 1950 there was no through street where
Riverview Terrace now exists, so it was most likely not considered a corner lot."
- Will and Anne Stevenson
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends approval of this variance request.
■ Practical difficulties exist — Riverview Terrace was extended after subject property was
developed.
■ Request will recognize an existing non -conformity.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction of the addition.
2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
DATE: May 17, 2010
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager
Community Development Staff
FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development
Director
SUBJECT: Variance Legislation
INTRODUCTION
On May 5, 2011, Governor Dayton signed a bill to "fix" the variance language in
State Statutes and to make consistent the language between the State's enabling
legislation for municipalities in SS 462 and the language found under SS 394.27,
which only applied to variances reviewed under County authority, prior to this
modification. The essence of the change is that both versions the City and the
County language match and they rely on the term "practical difficulties", rather
than undue hardship. City and County language consistency is a good thing
though this memo will point out the need for caution in certain areas of our
process. In this memorandum we will take a look at what we have done
historically relative to variances and as a result, how this new legislation will
apply.
FRIDLEY VARIANCE PRACTICES
Historically, the City of Fridley has correctly evaluated those things necessary in
the consideration of whether or not to grant a variance. These things included
hardship, uniqueness, alternatives, physical characteristics of land, and whether
or not the hardship was self-imposed by the property owner. The City has also,
however, had a practice of placing weight on what the city has, "done in the past
in similar variances instances". From an equal protection perspective, Fritz points
out that it is a good idea to be consistent and to look at what you have done. The
difference is in being, very specific in the record of how a situation is unique. This
is where the City needs to use caution because traditionally, if the request was
within previously granted parameters, staff was not to make a recommendation
to the Appeals Commission or Council.
In the past for example, it would be up to the Appeals Commission in Residential
Single Family, R-1 instances and if there was a recommendation of approval, the
variance process could end there. No Council approval would be required in that
instance. All other decisions were made at the Council level, but with the
recommendation of the Appeals Commission and if within previously granted
parameters, Council has had a history of following suit and approving that latest
variance before them as well.
Though well intentioned, now is the time to end that variance practice. Variances,
by description are only to be considered for unique characteristics of land and if
we are saying it is like a previously granted variance situation, neither case
apparently was unique. Only those variances that follow the strictest regiment of
individual review and a complete finding of fact, as suggested by the new
legislation, will be fully defensible.
RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The action by the Legislature that was signed into law by the Governor was a
response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Krummenacher v. City of
Minnetonka case. In Krummenacher the supreme court narrowly defined the term
reasonable use in the portion of the undue hardship test and would require that if
a property can be put to a reasonable use; a variance cannot be granted. For
example: If a home has a garage, but the owner wants a larger garage, a larger
garage that would require a variance, that variance request must be denied,
because a house and garage (though smaller than the owner wants) was
possible without a variance. Frankly, that interpretation would be very straight-
forward to enforce and of course defensible as it represented the will of the
Supreme Court in the Krummenacher decision.
The State Legislature became inundated with requests for a law amending the
variance enabling legislation so that it could be relieved of the strict burden of the
Supreme Court interpretation and ruling. Voices from several origins including:
the League of Minnesota Cities, many independent representatives from cities,
and a Minnesota auto dealers contingency weighed in on the matter. The
outcome of much legislative debate is this: Previous State -granted County
language, which only required a variance petition to demonstrate practical
difficulties in complying with a given law was chosen as the standard for
approval, as opposed to the undue hardship standard of the language in the
previous City enabling legislation. While it is good that the County and City
language now match, the subjectivity of interpreting what is a practical difficulty,
believe the term could may lead to wide-ranging and possibly less uniform and
possibly less defensible variance decisions in the future.
Fritz stated, ironically, looking at the language the League sent out as its general
parameters persuade me that the new legislation will actually have the effect of
lowering the City's earlier variance standards. I am not persuaded that this is
good and I agree with your assessment that it may mean for more ambiguity in
the future and the prospect of more challenges to judgment calls being made by
the Council on these matters in the future.
To help guide and eliminate the potential for subjectivity, the League of
Minnesota Cities has published a summary document. In the document the
League points to a structure for the findings of fact cities will be required to adopt
with each application:
o Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
o Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
o Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
o Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the
landowner?
o Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the City of Fridley has historically been careful in its approach of
reviewing variance requests and the latest legislation governing variances will not
have an enormous impact, as long as we document our findings. In fact, the City
will be just fine as long as it uses the bullet list above to create an appropriate
finding of fact. The City should however, discontinue its practice of evaluating the
new variance based on previously granted variances. This will help keep the
process more pure and their focus on the unique characteristics of the variance
application at hand.
Unless otherwise directed, staff will proceed with the above recommended
process of making a recommendation on every variance, regardless of past
variance history on other properties. Staff then will depend on the Commission
and Council to determine whether to grant the variance on the recommended
finding of facts for the site at hand only, without reference to other sites and
history, except for considering equal protection as Fritz cautions. Of course, the
Commission and Council will be free to modify the recommended finding of fact
offered by staff as they see appropriate.
7
Stevenson Resided S
ƒ � k
— o)e
/
a .
0—
'
f7 Logan Pkwy.
� � k
j
C �C
`i -
!
LL
Fride,MNa 32
E§ q
m o�
_
q_ cn 2
CO �0
|
LL
Q
|l,
4
JW,
Anne and William Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway
Fridley, MN 55432 763-571-3589
Weds. May 18, 2011
To: Community Development Department
City of Fridley
We would like to build an addition to our house, a rambler built in 1955. Presently a
room measuring 9.5 x 20 feet exists behind the garage (to the south). The proposed
addition would measure approximately 15 x 20 feet and would be directly south of this
room. It would be one story, peaked roof, typical exterior to include shingled roof and
most likely vinyl siding. It would be designed as a family room, likely to include a patio
door facing west. It would be used as a bedroom the first couple of years because of the
demand for bedrooms in our family. Oldest son is finishing sophomore year at Fridley
High and is planning on attending college. Our daughter is in 7th and needs her own
room; our two youngest sons are in 5th and 1 st grades.
We had a survey done in April of this year to establish property lines. As suspected by
your staff members, the survey proved it to be a nonconforming property with less than a
17.5 foot setback needed for a corner lot. With advice from Scott Hickok we have waited
to apply for a variance until the new law was signed by Gov. Dayton that will allow cities
discretion in granting variances once again.
The surveyors indicated that when this property was plotted in 1955 there was no through
street where Riverview Terrace now exists, so it was most likely not considered a corner
lot. We understand the City must depend on legal descriptions of property lines but the
closest point of our house to the actual roadway of Riverview Terrace is 29 feet (as
measured by my tape measure). Also, the proposed addition is on the other side of the
house where conforming setbacks do exist. These are our reasons for asking you to
consider granting us a variance.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
9#ea loll
Anne and ill S evenson
Community Development Department
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley MN 55432
763.572.3592
Fax: 763.571.1287
www.ci.fridley.mmus
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR:
Residential Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Signs
Property Information
Address: 172 � oQa ri Pork WK
Anoka County Property Identification Number PIN #): -Jo- I/
Legal Description: L®f 20 8k 1 Oak Creek Ari
Current Zoning: re5jenf:a j Square footage of Parcel: /SUUO
Reason for Variance (one sentence summary, please attached full
Fee/Property Owner Information (as it appears on property title)
**Fee owner must sign _04j.
hi form prior to processing c
Name (please print): 4j 6 . aar/ f J �evem S4 N
Mailing address: 172 lqqao Parkwape
City: fridlev S ate: 1?A1 Zip code: .554 3 2 -
Daytime Phone: 7623-571- 35i?9 Fax Number:
Cell Phone: 763'567-.qq:g7 E-mail address: 0QAJuJh0U54:' 1al aev,a;l. Com
A
Signature/Date:
r4
Petitioner Information
Company Name (please print):
Contact Person's Name (please print): 6
Mailing addre u�r
City: —rrle7le State:
Daytime Phone: 7/' .35$9 Fax Number:
Cell Phone: E-mail address: G oind
Signature/Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Zip code: 55-Y72
-Y72
Fees
$500 – R-1, Single Family Residential X_
$1,400 – Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Residential/Signs
Application Number: 11-0i Receipt #: Received By:
Application Date: -4'11
15 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 4
Scheduled Appeals Commission Date:17_
Scheduled City Council Date:
60 Day Date: t) –1 E
60 Day Extension Date:
5-18-1/
'A_//
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION
TO:
All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property
generally located at 172 Logan Parkway.
CASE NUMBER:
VAR #11-01
APPLICANT.
William and Anne Stevenson
Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting.
PURPOSE:
Petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard
setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 9.3 feet to recognize
the existing non -conforming setback of the existing house.
LOCATION OF
172 Logan Parkway
PROPERTY AND
LEGAL
Lot 20, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, subject to easement of
DESCRIPTION:
record.
DATE AND TIME OF
Appeals Commission Meeting:
HEARING:
Wednesday, July 6, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
The Appeals Commission Meetings are televised live the night
of the meeting on Channel 17.
PLACE OF
Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers
HEARING:
6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN
HOW TO
1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTICIPATE:
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Stacy
Stromberg, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley,
MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287.
SPECIAL
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
ACCOMODATIONS:
Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500
no later than June 29, 2011. The TDD # is 763-572-3534.
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 763-572-3595.
*PROPOSED CITY
The proposed City Council meeting date for this item will be on
COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 25, 2011. *This date is subject to change
depending on the outcome of the Appeals Commission
meeting. Please confirm City Council date prior to
attending City Council meeting. (Please note residential
variances, if approved by Appeals Commission do not go
on to City Council only if they are denied. Commercial
variances do go on to City Council weather they are
approved or denied by the Appeals Commission.
Mailed — June 24, 2011
I
CITYOF Community Development Department
FRIDLEY public Hearing Notice
170
a
60
2
� 1 7365
fl :�rs
7356 ..,.
i % 139 115 7355 4, 4x"vx
t r
150 �-
159
189 r'
E E D 7335'
211 0Co
a w mss.
100 7321
145
219 147 7315
129 123 7300
309 r� 115 7271
V 79 59 39 29
323 101 7255}
200 LOGAN PKWY
7235
o
7190 oo $ 6040 7231
N4;.•
7180 7179 22 7221
117 111 707 81 7217,
7170 7175 125 ' 61 7210 7215
R
7169 110 p 7201
7162 ` ???? 133 �0 80 tO 7180 7191 N "`
7161 132 115 7181
7158IX C N 105 103 7165
7157 o MEYERS AVE
7154
'151 700 :
7153 ,>� 0 7155
00
7144 7145�7 7135
7138 7131 os O D D R 7129
7132 7104 '` `ti `�° 7136 7125 N 20
7121 W r� ^ ^ ;� 7119
7130 7102 i
_ 7115
7105 7100 `.-° Ao 7109
7120 7107
SOURCES
Fridley Engineering N
Fridley GIS Variance Request, VAR #11-01
Anoka County GIS Petitioner: William and Anne Stevenson W E
Address: 172 Logan Parkway
Map Date: June 21, 2011 S
KINDOM THOMAS YOCUM DOUGLAS BEAULIEU CAROL K
125 ALDEN CIR NE 144 LOGAN PKWY NE 111 ALDEN CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
BERG JOHN NELSEN WILLIAM A & MARIE J HOVEY DELAINE A & ELSA J
7170 RIVERVIEW TERR 323 LOGAN PKY NE 158 LOGAN PKY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
JOHNSON ROBERT L & KAREN WOLD MICHELLE A NAGEL RODERICK A & DAISY L
130 LOGAN PKY NE 133 ALDEN CIR 7175 RIVERVIEW TERR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
NAGEL RODERICK A & DAISY L HANSON WAYNE R & SANDRA K NELSEN MARC & SANDRA M
7175 RIVERVIEW TER NE 7162 RIVERVIEW TER NE 235 LOGAN PKY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
COLBY SUSAN M OPARE-ADDO SAMUEL & KRISTIE HANLEY SUZANNE
148 71 112 WAY NE 116 LOGAN PKY NE 211 LOGAN PKWY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
STEVENSON WILLIAM B & ANNE M FERBER RICHARD H & MARGARET C DEAN STACY
172 LOGAN PKY NE 7180 RIVERVIEW TER NE 7169 RIVERVIEW TER NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
GUNIA MONTE L & JAKUBIK K L PIPES TRUSTEE MARY & PIPES TRUSTEE RONALD NELSEN LEIF
117 ALDEN CIR NE 7179 RIVERVIEW TER NE 7190 RIVERVIEW TER NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
BOLF GEORGE A & LINDA B SHAW AGNES M
154 71 112 WAY NE 309 LOGAN PKY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
KEENAN PATRICK A HAWKINSON THOMAS A & HAEMIG L
200 LOGAN PKY NE 7161 RIVERVIEW TER NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
FRIDLEY CITY OF ANDERSON KERRY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 219 LOGAN PKY NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000
UIYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287 - TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534
June 13, 2011
William and Anne Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway
Fridley MN 55432
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson:
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants
within 15 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your
application for a variance on June 3, 2011. This letter serves to inform you that your application
is complete.
Your Variance application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley Appeals
Commission Meeting on July 6, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431
University Avenue. If your variance application needs to be reviewed by the City Council, the
meeting will be held on July 25, 2011 at 7:30 in the City Council Chambers. Please plan to be
in attendance at both of the above referenced meetings.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at
763-572-3595.
N
, b
Planner
CERT I F. I CATE OF SURVEY o
(MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT)
FOR vi KURTH SURVEYING, INC. SCALE IN FEET
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E.
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED 4AND SURVEYOR UNDER PHONE (763) 788-9769 FAX (763) 788-7602 DATE
THE -WS OFnTHE S,TATEiQfrMINNE?%OTA. E-MAIL: KURTHSURVEY®AOL.COM o = IRON MONUMENT 5t;
Randy L. Kurth, C.L.S. No. 20270
Russell J. Kurth, L.L.S. No. 16113
A
t
_75
uz,�5
Ik•
r
13.?
LCGALor-1
L-&,\ 20, '6-oLK- 1, 0 9!k k
C7 _ C
cmT
i
Ito C�)
r
N
• - I� Fou No
C'p)-9 A`r %\s`tgl'Nc
(M) 7- MCP6 VA1 i?
k -w 1-< 006"V-1")
a`CHA�1N L1�IY..FLA{�
C(c
R
M- u 11 A._ 4
0
6
+[215]
PIN NUMBER IS
ASSIGNED TO A 10' CITY
STORM SEWER EASEMENT
51
0
.IDDEN a
[57 '31 E
9
S 1/2 SECTION 10, T. 30, R 24
CITY OF FRIDLEY
8 42
, 41
P a oaavaa
e r w ii sec ro
atm
W a
pDr.. # cam Z
4m am D d I Its t.
'V �a $ RU)GAN PARKWAY
fv m� — an m Ca aae a. • R� �II
R x w tutu Det it'a- ti m i i 3 1 n]
bi m �5l�1S4 _ atm DI
Roo
Ft a t l s
Im
atW t •a B ' e MEYERS Aw- 5r�rya t JD.IL aHOR `m m [m •tDe � z III itml
�4[m
+ �„ a e 4 rot ro n ra rs I 'KJ
/- B z I I Q I
4 a ww yb- 9[m .A
�, Trg. / , .« a [m �D •Mlb l taus
aR ) IW -[>AR« IaR W7 N ro J / ai a ♦ a B
lJ_
IBM m to
ODORS
�{ FSC/ - 3iGot1G ID'nkt� �t ��
s.V]$r1D �//��� ✓� % 4 A 0 m s. aml I rwmcre
17/ aam t91 to POEM R"$
y Ia«7R
- a
as
y a7 WAY N.E. 1 p ra[«I I I
P rratm I Qi
rs
9 1 e - iat1� > n>ro De E De
I J F Y � d a tmia RY I to I
a n m�
Y %J j"41 JI _
—i►9yn reJlrel POI III I
YCspli
as -AAM
J�VV I 1 De - r«�i sac ro
$ 43 L` RE 44 I
QUARTERQUARTERRNDEX
N
ANOKA COUNTY 22 121 i PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER THUS R A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS
GRAPHIC SCALE SURVEYOR'S OMCEHALF
-+- -+- i".w6Yp Rmge ORm*u Spoel& .it1eY APPEARINTItEANOttA OODN'n'
ROOM 22423 134 I3 I N Nv bm N�ba N� � P"d OFF[CFS AFFECnNG THE AREA SHOWN.
RQ^ Q '� THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR
® 21003RD AVENUE N. ___}___.___#___ XX XX X.X XX XXXX REFERENCE PURPOSES AND TKECOUNTY
SCAIE . FEET ANOKA, FII 55303 32 1 31 1 42 1 41 IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
IatR44«GAvm 47,At0 S (763)3215510 l3 1 36 43 1 66 OF
SECnON EXAMPLE OF SPECIFIC PARCEL
N NUMBER, 0.36,z6440NJARE IN BRACKETS: Ell INACCURACIES F(LREN COMAINED.
oammlo tmu3Am IbmPA«6
0
P
P �
P
e
m
172 Logan Parkway
Disclaimer: This information Is being distributed as demonstration data only. You should not use the data for any other purposes at N
this time. This information Is to be used for reference purposes only.
copyright m 2010 Gly of Fridley, All Rights Reserved W*
a
s
Printed 06107/2011
--c/_/4
44
tA
sem..,,, -.
SWa.rtar.�p..t. Farm No. y-M
of»._ ...... much ..................... _...... »,
betwom L. W. Peterson & Sons, Inc.,
a corporation under the iaws of the State O' ....._.». .Q...»....».».»...............»......a party Of Oze"part, and
Village of Fridley, a municipal corporation,
of the County..._.»._ ...................................... and ,4t1410 of ............. Minnesota ....... _._.................... »._
partz.............of the "vend part,
WiftW09th, That the . said party of the -ftret part, in son Avatton of as sun of
to it in hand paid by the said party ..... »....... of the wooed park the rm*t wha+eof is hereby aelmowUdled,
does h�r Grant, Bargain, Sell, and Convey unto the amid party...._.... ..... of the second part,...its..................
can asedfne, Forever, all the tract ...... ..... or parcel».:........of land lyint and betnt in the County of
_......__ Anoka......................................and State of minneaoia, deeorlbad as foitaeba, to -wit:
That part of Lot Nineteen (19), Block One (1), Oak Creek Addition, Village of
Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows Beginning at the.South-
east corner of said Lot Nineteen (19); thence West along the South line thereof
67.4 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with the East line thereof 163.95 feet
more or less to the Northwesterly line thereof; thence Northeasterly along the
Northwesterly line thereof to the most Northerly corner of said Lot; thence
Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line thereof to the Northeast corner thereof;
thence South along the East line thereof to the point of beginning and that part
of Lot Eighteen (18), Block'Ons (1) of said Oak Creed Addition described as follows;
beginning at a point on the South line of Lot Nineteen (19), Block One (1) of said
Oak Creek Addition distant 67.4 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence
North parallel with the East line of said Lot Nineteen (19) a distance of 163.95
feet more or less to the Southeasterly line of said Lot Eighteen (18) and which
point is the actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence continuing Northeasterly in a straight line to the East line of said Lot
Eighteen (18) a distance of 33.8 feet more or less; thence Southeasterly to the
Southeast corner thereof; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of
said Lot Eighteen (18) to the point of beginning.
For roadway purposes.
$o *at WO to m the &ne, Totother with all the hereditavrents and appurtenanass
belonging, or in any<alas appertainint, to the said party....._..:... of the w4ond part,....it�8..................... a�
assign, Porever..gnd the aaid.__.L.._W _ PetBrsAn.& .Sons,..InO..y................. ....................................................................... _
party of the Arat vart. for YpIf and its auobesears, docs covenant with the aWd.part.y..............of the second
part,..... its .............. e r ins, that it is law seised in foo of the Eaauie and pre -4m aforesaid, Oct"
Am food rliht to sell and convey the earns in nkmaer and fw7& aforesaU, and that the aaane are free
fromall insumbrancce_... _........ ............... ..._......_.............. _._......._.._.._»...._._. _. »......_...._... __._.._ � »» .
dnd the above barfained and granted k4uu,;{;{� , in the quiet and peaveable pownsion of the
said party ..»»»._of the awand pari,..ifi.9......... . f aesifna, of -Seat all persons lawfully elahnini or
to d d- the -hold or any part thereof, subject to ineuwAranasa, if any, hereinbefore rnentioped. the qW4
party of the lest Part wibP Warrant and Defend.
3n IegtWMT Ubeteof. The said *alt party ha$ oaused thaeq
presents to be saeeuted to its corporate name by its...... ........... .................
0 SEAL President and its.. gikts...President......»...and fate corporate aeal is
be hereunto of zed the day and year fet above written.
In Presence .I \ By... .
..... . !`y..".-..... 1 Its..... W
• 1 )
_ .... ..... . .................. l,(J
Its. .......... ...1!.... ......... .�.._
342 mm330
�atatt of pinnaota,
as
Counv of.....__.._AaQM ..... ..... .......... _ 18.52....
Onlrhie_W..(t�kt.._.. » ....................._._......day of. ............. _.__March._. .......... ___.............._.._.. _ be ore ane , a
Aotary Pnblia.._..._.__.._....__....__..............Cottnty personally alveased
..._._..............._........_.....LA Ww...r ca teram.............................._....andEB:keiSOL1.................................................................... .....
to ane personably known, who, bdn,i each bymQeQduly swop ....... ....... .•.......... .dict my that they are reapeoguely
P
t%LB.:..t.....:.«.:....».:..»:.......iQd�ent and t%iL.��._..�. Vi5.�4 ++a �0P+i ....... of
a w OOrporagm named to the
foaejdangtnaerument, and..th," 7�W1"11 -III__,
and that said hwa ruvwnt was dgned and -waled in behalf of aatd eorporatdan by authority of ita Ifoard
Of......I...........�at,afra........... :................. and Said........L...Wy...P.etw-s=... .................. ............ ...... ..................... ...._............ .... and
........ �. Je?.„ PstterAd�lq...».. .. __......aoknawied�ad aaid Mebwanent to be the free act and deed of aaid
_ ._. _..... ....... »...._.._ ». _ ___. _ .. _ ......
Notary Pub .....»................... K?n►a........... »...... .._..County, Minn.
n J My ooanmiaaion oxpirea___My- fiy tc q^o _._».._....._ 18.»
r ejOn c,
o�, s ynty M
- T ti'•4 Jty*
record o
U
LCICAm
1
°i
n the 26 dw of July
A. D.
fr
1955 at 9
i .
I Ct
o'clock A.M.
0
R
VIIsIC-mic 10 -om. W* Ow for
Anoka County
MWOWLt
Property Details
:General Information
Summary
Page 1 of 1
;Property ID 10-30-24-42-0027
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
;Tax Year 2011
;Situs Address UNASSIGNED SITUS , FRIDLEY, MN 00000-0000
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
THAT PRT OF LOT 19 BLK 1 OAK CREEK DESC AS FOL: BEG AT SE COR OF SO LOT, TH W ALG S LINE
THEREOF 67.4 FT, TH NELY PRLL/W E LINE THEREOF 163.95 FT +OR- TO NWLY LINE THEREOF, TH
NELY ALG NWLY LINE THEREOF TO MOST NLY COR OF SD LOT, TH SELY ALG NELY LINE THEREOF TO::
:Property NE COR THEREOF, TH S ALG E LINE THEREOF TO POB, TOG/W THAT PRT OF LOT 18 SD BLK 1 DESC
Description AS FOL: BEG AT A PT ON S LINE OF LOT 19 SD BLK 167.4 FT W OF SE COR THEREOF, TH N PRLL/W
E LINE OF SD LOT 163.95 FT +OR- TO SELY LINE OF SD LOT 18 & POB, TH CONT NELY IN A
STRAIGHT LINE TO E LINE OF SD LOT 18 33.8 FT +OR-, TH SELY TO SE COR THEREOF,TH SWLY ALG:
SELY LINE OF SD LOT 18 TO POB, SUB] TO EASE OF REC
i Linked Property
:Group Position
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:
:Status Active
:Abstract/Torrens jAbstract
:Lot Size...................................................................................IIRREGULAR
..Si...................................................................................................................................... :
* Lot Size: Approximate lot size in feet, clockwise beginning with the direction the lot faces
Developed by Manatron, Inc.
@2010 All rights reserved.
Version 1.0.4043.14061
https://starlite.co.anoka.mn.us/(u25uwzi 13jigic13gfb521545)/parcelinfo.aspx 6/27/2011
r-
0
-51
B
I
--�°N � °®
e . 0
WA
v'yes
S �
�f/� s
WN
Anne & William Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway
Fridley, MN 55432
r5. fpr;l /�/ 1201/
�'-' 5(,t/ #ia'�
i.4CIUaV
W1 01 sotuel w r i 1i �IamfeV RUG"/ / iCL1
pve%dru W fl.4-2 ?rav'jel by Odd�ovo
763-571-3589
6105. (005'4-uc-fdh
c
tZ'40 c444 s�
51LC"d Y�Iu 1116-1 yew he
�dtll '5671a�19
y��
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 0 3�
'MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT)
FOR W 5'cav`ribc, KURTH SURVEYNG, INC. SCALE IN FEET
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT 4002 JTFEM ST. NE
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION COLLWA hEITS, MN 55421
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED VM SURVEYOR UNDER RM (763) 738-9M FAX (763) 788-7602 DATE �"�' �Z - 7-o1 I
T¢I-i41YS OFQTHE SZATEiQF'MINNEWTA. E-4A1L: KURTHSURVEY®AOL.COAI 0 - I RON MONUMENT SV'f
Randy L. Xurth, C.L.S. No. 20270
Russell J. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 16113
LO�����
65
LA7-
�__ QC1, fovvo
oft"
SC. ND
�t EasEMc�T �,
LL 1D C? 110
L 1 10, -6%4Ly- ) I O to K.
.
A140V- C-pU N t yn, t N Ne-tpaTA
0 : J. T�&jt4v
CP)-?tP;i' �15`t�1iVC.t
(M)7- MCP►SVQVD
�'C�a►tN LtN1G�Fi:
4
Development Review Committee Worksheet
Address: 172 Logan Parkway Land Use Case: VAR #11-01
❑
Paul Bolin ❑
Dave Jensen
❑ Jim Kosluchar
❑
John Crelly ❑
Julie Jones
❑ Layne Otteson
❑
Rachel Harris ❑
Ron Julkowski
❑ Mary Smith
,*
Scott Hickok
❑ Stacy Stromberg
Planning
Issues:
Enaineerino
Issues:
o
Setbacks
❑
Drainage
❑
Lot coverage
❑
Utilities
❑
Allowable square footage
❑
Curbing requirements
❑
Height
❑
❑
Landscape
❑
Hardship statement/narrative
Fire Issues:
❑
Truck access
❑
Sprinkler requirements
Building Issues:
❑
Hydrant location
❑
2007 State Building Code
❑
❑
Need signed plans
❑
SAC Units
13
Stipulations:
Comments:
Date: /
Hickok, Scott
From: Hickok, Scott
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:17 PM
To: Bolkcom, Ann; 'aandwhouse@gmail.com'
Cc: Burns, Bill; Jones, Julie; Stromberg, Stacy; Jensen, David; Julkowski, Ron
Subject: RE: City of Fridley: possible addition to home
Will:
Thank you for your inquiry and your cautious approach as you move forward with expansion plans on your property. I
will start this response with an answer to your question about Chapter 205.31. From there, I will explain the Code as it
applies to setbacks, variance potential, and alternatives.
As you stated, Code Section 205.31 relates to pre -1955 lots and allows certain lots to now be conforming. That is true.
Those lots however, were lots that were 50 feet wide at the time of their plats. The ordinance specifically allowed those
small lots to be considered conforming by virtue of their lot size. Prior to adoption of 205.31, these lots would be
considered non -conforming because of their 50' width and smaller lot area dimensions (code requires a width of 75' or
80' on a corner and a minimum lot size of 9,000 sf). The ordinance did not allow relief for standard or over- sized lots
that happened to have building setbacks that are substandard. You really need a survey to properly locate the home as
it sits on the lot. Simple math shows that you may very well have the setbacks you need, but that is somewhat of an
unknown without a survey. We also could not get to this point of discovery without quite a bit more time of research
and analysis.
Your property situation is this:
Legal Description: Lot 20, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition
PIN M R10-30-24-42-0029
Address: 172 Logan Parkway
Lot size: Approximately 14,935 sf (minimum required by Code 9,000 sf)
Street -front Lot Width: 96 feet (minimum required by Code 80' on a corner lot)
House dimensions according to Assessor: 68'X 30'(2040 sf including attached garage)
Survey on file: None
Here is where the simple math begins (and there could be good news, but Dave and Julie are correct, it does not appear
this way on the aerial photograph of your home): Your northern lot boundary is 96' wide and your southern lot
boundary appears to be 110' wide. Your eastern lot line appears to take off north at a 90 degree angle at the southeast
corner. That means the added lot width would be at the southern boundary, toward the southwest corner of the lot.
The western lot line angles outward to the southwest. If we simply took a lot width of 96' and subtracted the 68' width
of the house, we would have a difference of 28'. Then, if from that you need 17.5 feet on the street side and 10' on the
dwelling side (east), 28 feet would give you that with 6" to spare. Now, knowing that your lot gets wider at the back, it is
very likely you would have enough room, provided that your house is situated correctly and that it doesn't cheat in on
either the 10' or 17.5' side lot dimensions.
This should be enough inspiration hopefully for you to get a survey. Sure it is costly, but it is important to know where
the house sits on the lot when you are adding to it, especially if you are going to place a garage in your rear yard, then
you really need to know where the lines are. If you find that you have 10' on one side and 17.5 on the other, based on
your survey, then you could even attach your new garage to the rear of the home with a breezeway or 4 season porch.
You wouldn't be expanding a non -conformity at that point.
If your survey shows a deficiency in one or the other of the setbacks a variance could not be granted. Recent case law
has redefined what is considered a reasonable use of the property and with an existing house and garage, the courts
would view your existing condition as an existing reasonable use of the property that does not warrant a variance for
expansion.
If I had your situation and I was looking at a garage addition in my back yard, I would get a survey. Once you have it it is
also valuable insurance for you have on file showing what you have on your property and where it is all located. I'd have
your surveyor look at our Code and alsoshow the location of the proposed garage as well, then you can submit that with
your building permit if the other two setback issues work out. If setbacks are an issue we will have to consider
alternatives beyond variances. Those will be more cumbersome and without guarantee, because they would require a
policy change/ decision by council to begin allowing non -conformities to be recognized by a certification process as
opposed to being forgiven through a variance process. More on this approach if your survey shows that it is warranted.
I hope this information is helpful. Call or write if you need further assistance.
Scott
Scott J. Hickok, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley; MN 55432
PH: 763-572-3590
From: Bolkcom, Ann
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 20117:54 PM
To: Hickok, Scott
Subject: FW: City of Fridley: possible addition to home
Scott, here is the information. I appreciate you contacting him and giving him so direction. here is his other number 763
5678487. thanks ann
From: will stevenson [mailto:aandwhouse@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 2/15/20113:16 PM
To: Bolkcom, Ann
Subject: City of Fridley: possible addition to home
This is an enquiry e-mail via hnp://www.ci.fridley.mn.us/ from:
will stevenson <aandwhouse@gmail.com>
Hi Ann
Am looking for guidance on how to proceed with plans for a possible addition to our home. So far have talked with Dave from
Inspections and Julie Jones via phone, both of you have lead me to believe we are most likely nonconforming. A survey cannot be
found presently; plan to have one done as soon as snow is gone. Even if survey confirms nonconformity I believe Chap. 205.31
Residential Lots Created Prior to Dec.29 1955 of the city code grants us an exception to nonconforming issue. Can you give me your
interpretation of 205.31.Or at least advise on whether this project will be okayed or how best to proceed.
Thank you
Will Stevenson
172 Logan Parkway
571-3589
Stromberg, Stacy
From: william stevenson [aandwhouse@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:48 PM
To: Stromberg, Stacy
Subject: Re: Variance
Hi Stacey
We talked in detail with Nick Donovan about what we wanted for what we could afford.
That being said, I considered the plan drawn up by Donovan Bros. to be a
preliminary plan, drawn up about the time we realized we may have non -conforming
setback issues. That is as far as I went with any contractors because I didn't want
to put the cart before the horse. We needed to find the property line and see what
the setback was. After that was determined to be nonconforming it became an issue of
needing a variance and then waiting for the state law on variances to change. Now it
is a question of the variance application being accepted. It was my intention to wait
until that decision has been made before I asked at least 2 more contractors for
bids. Is this the right approach?
I will say this about that plan. It is very close to what we have in mind. It is the
dimensions we want, in the location we want. We talked in general terms about what
we could afford to spend, because we were uncertain about that. We now have an exact
number.
I would appreciate any guidance in get ready for the meeting with the Appeals
Commission. Do I need a final plan?
I would appreciate your input, thank you.
Will Stevenson
On 6/21/11, Stromberg, Stacy <StrombergS@ci.fridley.mn.us> wrote:
> Hi Will and Anne,
> I am working on your variance staff
> plan drawn by Donovan Bros., dated
> going with? If so, I will include
> Commission. If not, do you have an
> I've attached the 1/30/11 plan for
> Thanks,
> Stacy Stromberg
> Planner
report and I was wondering if the
1/30/11, is the plan that you're
in the packet to the Appeals
updated plan that I can use?
your review.
1