Loading...
SP 81-06r PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1981 PAGE 8 Ms.\ee Norfolk, 36 Talmadge Way, stated they bought their h e in August 1980, belthat the area was all privately owned.homes. She ated that Mr. Doyle . hahe plans to get a family to buy the duplex and entually take over thome. She stated that would be fine, but su osing the other side of the i empty for six months or more, then ther are more reasons for vaand 'Id parties. She recently moved fro a duplex and knows the nuroblem with transient people and the p r upkeep of the dwelling. There is feeling f a total community once th e are transient neighbors. She didhink this lex was what they neede in their neighborhood. owner Mr. Doyle stated he felt that if they gek/o, buyer who is the owner-occupant,the is -going to have as much ride in the rty as the rest of the people in the neighborhood. He also plan to make t e duplex affordable. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED SP #81-05 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING/AYE, CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. . WHARTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Hughes stated that t s plan as drawn s ms to be very appropriate for this neighborhood and giyeany a apperance of a sin le family dwelling. She stated she liked the arrangemetrying to control nois by having the garage on the street side. She did not disadvantages to the p oposal at all. MOTIOI'THAT HUG ES, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RE MEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81- 5, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC.:T ON 205.051, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COD TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A R-1 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), LOT. 4, BLOCK 2, LEIGH, THE SAME BEING 20 OSBORNE WAY N.E., ACCORDING O BUILDING PLAN, BP"3MXBTH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: IT MEETS THE 10,000 SQ. FT. REQUIREMENT FOR DUPLE UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND BIKEWAY EASEMENTS ARE PRESER D THE THIRD GARAGE IS PROVIDED.. A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, SVANDA, HUGHES, VAN DAN, AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, GABEL 'G MAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE -MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-1. Ms. Gabel stated she has no problem with this plan, but she voted nay because of her opposition to spot rezoning. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY -LEIGH INVEST- MENTS, INC.: Per Section 205.0bl, 3, D, of t e Fri ey City Co e, to -al ow (� The construction of a duplex in R -1 -zoning (single family dwelling areas) on Lot 3, Block 1, Leigh Terrace, the same being 31 Osborne Way N.E. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO.OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:25 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1981 PAGE 9 Mr. Boardman stated this lot was across the street from SP #81-05. This lot is not 10,000 sq. ft. which is required and would require a variance if the special use permit is approved. The proposal is also for a duplex which is set up with a double garage. It would also require an additional third stall. It will meet the setback limitations. Mr. Doyle stated that this is the same idea as SP #81-05 but with a different plan. The house is specially designed for this lot-. He stated they were trying to accom- plish the same thing with this dwelling and they were doing it for the same reasons as the previous proposal. He stated he would like to address the issue of the lot size requirement. He believed that when the lot was platted, the City had taken into account the St. Paul Waterworks property as green area in the back and that it was considered the same as a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Boardman stated he would check the records regarding this. Mr. Les Watkins, 40 Osborne Way, stated he was in favor of this proposal for the same reasons he had stated for the previous proposal (SP #81-05). Ms. Jan Dean, 65 - 75th Way N.E., stated that on this particular corner, there is a bus.stop and the area is essentially level. It is an interesting piece of land, and now Mr. Doyle wants to put a two-story duplex in there. She thought this was going back to spot rezoning. She did not have any real objections to the duplex going in across the street, but she did have problems with this proposal as she did not like to see another spot rezoning when there is going to be so many variances. After checking the City records, Mr. Boardman stated that the plat was approved by the Planning Commission in 1975 with the condition that they get written easement from St. Paul Waterworks. There was a letter of agreement from the Water Dept. of St. Paul dated April 15, 1976, that would allow the use of the St. Paul Waterworks property as a portion of lot size with conditions. The City Council approved the plat on May 17, 1976, and because of the agreement, it brings this lot to over the required 10,000 sq. footage. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:42 P.M. Ms. Hughes stated this plan may be the only way this lot can be used, but it dial not have the advantages of the other lot as far as the buffering of noise from East River Road and as far as screening East River Road from the living rooms. She stated that at this point, she could not approve this request as she was not sure this was the structure they wanted to see and she was not convinced this was the right use for that property. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC., AND ASK THE PETITIONER TO COME BACK WITH A BETTER DESIGN FOR THE LOT. ° PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1981 PAGE 10 MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC., PER SECTION 205.051, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC- TION OF A DUPLEX IN R-1 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LEIGH TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 31 OSBORNE WAY N.E., WITH NO STIPULATIONS. Ms. Gabel stated she felt the third car.garage stipulation should be added to the motion, because of the traffic problems on East River Road. If there was any parking in the street, there could be even more problems. Ms. van Dan stated she was concerned about trying to squeeze a lot of building onto a small piece of property. Ms. Gabel stated she objected because this was,again, spot rezoning. The house is an atrocity, and the neighbors seem more opposed to this structure. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SVANDA AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, GABEL, HUGHES, AND VAN DAN VOTING NAY, AND HARRIS ABSTAINING, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE NOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-2. MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHES, T TABLE HE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP.#81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC., PER SECTION 205.051, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX IN R-1 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LEIGH TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 31 OSBORNE WAY N.E., AND TO REQUEST THE PETITIONER TO RECONSIDER THE DESIGN OF THE DUPLEX. UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, VAN DAN, HUGHES, AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, GABEL AND SVANDA VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-2. 5. P BLIC HEA NG: RE Rsing family/ L t 78 a d 79, Bloc o nersh'p are the s d elli gs, being ad MOTTO By MS. HUGHES, SEC ZOA # 17403 BY JOHN R. DOY UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL OPEN 9:55 P.M. NING REQUEST ' OA #81-03, BY elling area to - genera 2, Riverv' w Hei, ht , so that e zonin to al/low t e constr essed 391-9-3-95-9 Hugo �--ZBY MR. SVANDA, O EN JOHN R. OYLE: Rezone f m mu 'p a family dwell' gs), a t roperty un er one ti of two (2) unit d 40'1-03-0 -07 H o Street N.E. THE PUBLIC E ING' ON AYE, CHAIRMAN JtARIVS DECLARED Mr. Boa\On stated th t he a d me t foarea. hey disc t o 4-uellings. Mr. Boar arkingt betw en the two s situatim the single family variancot s' ze. The City propertitself. Mr. Doy have di cuss sed se eral possib'lit an s ated it was h's� u ures. This wou h e . He stated Mr. W. a requesting bik HEARING d t potentia for develop- eu0fTer Mr. Doyle 's proposing mendation t t the the noise and traffic Doyyle has applie for a w -v easement wit in the V CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the May 6, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner John Doyle, 6305 East River Road Ray Price, 77 - 75th Way N.E. James Fisher, 45 - 75th Way N.E. Robert Varhol, 55 - 75th Way N.E.' Jan Dean, 65 - 75th Way N.E. APPROVAL OF APRIL 22, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 22, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, IN . Per Section 205.051, 3, D, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a duplex in R-1 zoning (single family dwelling areas) on Lot 3, Block 1, Leigh Terrace, the same being 31 Osborne Way N.E. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO REMOVE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC., FROM THE TABLE. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH. -INVESTMENTS, INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED AT 7:40 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission tabled this request and requested the petitioner to come back with a redesign of the structure. He stated Mr. Doyle, the petitioner, was in the audience to answer questions. He stated this new design meets ,the 3 -stall requirement. Mr. Doyle stated that the new plan was redesigned to provide the 3 -stall require- ment. Actually, there is a stall and one-half on one side and two stalls on the other side. He again explained that the reason for requesting this special use permit is because on two separate occasions, they have had single family homes sold on that corner lot, and both times the lenders were reluctant to pro- vide financing. The lenders did not feel that corner was the proper location for a single family home. He stated he is planning on doing some fencing along East River Road to provide'a buffer to this property. Mr. Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this item. Mr. Robert Varhol, 55 - 75th Way N.E., stated Mr. Doyle has two houses in that area already. If he puts in another house, it will create a fire hazard as the houses are too close together. He has one house that has been there for two years and hasn't been sold yet. Ms. Jan Dean, 65 - 75th Way N.E., stated it seemed strange that financing was impossible to get for a single family dwelling because of the noxious fumes and heavy traffic on East River Road, and instead of one family being subjected to those conditions, it seemed preferable to put two families in there. She stated when Mr. Doyle purchased this property, he knew East River Road was there with its various problems. The lot is very small and did not meet the minimum code requirements for what is needed to build• a duplex. At the last Planning Commission meeting, there was some discussion about the fact that the St. Paul Waterworks property in the back could be considered part of this property and would meet the lot requirements. She showed the Planning Commission pictures she had taken of the lot. Mr. Ray Price, 77 - 75th Way N.E., stated he was against the duplex. He stated there is already a little white house with a garage larger than the house, a large brown house, and now Mr. Doyle wants to squeeze in a duplex for two families. Mr. Jim Fisher, 45 - 75th Way N.E., stated he lives right across the street from this lot. After Mr. Doyle puts in a fence, there is going to be only about 10 ft. from the front door to the fence. The big brown house has no yard. He thought it would be a blight to the neighborhood to try to jam another building into this small area. Any people visiting that duplex would have to park in front of their homes as there would not be any room to park on the lot. Mr. Doyle stated he is before the Planning Commission with a special use permit request. The lot is a buildable lot. He did not know what bearing the other houses has on this project. He is trying to work with the neighborhood to build PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 3 something that is going to.look nice in the neighborhood, but he is having trouble getting a nice looking single family home sold and financed on that lot. He is better able to build rental property, because the lending agents' rules are different on rental property. Mr. Price stated that if Mr. Doyle was looking for the best thing for the neighbor- hood, then he would not build a duplex, because the neighborhood does not want it. A single family home would be fine. Ms. Dean stated she felt the issue of the other houses was germane to the issue, because they live there. At the last meeting, Mr. Doyle had stated he would try to get an owner occupant in that duplex. She would challenge the members of the Planning Commission to consider whether they would want to be the owner occupant of a duplex in this location. She stated there are three lanes of traffic on Osborne Way. There would not be any place for parking so close to the intersection, and the traffic light stands right on the property. Mr. Oquist stated he was looking at the other side of the issue. He understands the problem with having affordable housing and what young people are paying today to buy a home. Affordable housing is just not available anymore. Cities have to provide some kind of affordable housing for people,yet everybody is opposed to having it across the street from them. Ms. Hughes stated there are two considerations -here, and they covered them in their last meeting: (1) the relationship to the St. Paul Waterworks property that gives the petitioner a buildable lot and could be revoked; and (2) what is the difference between rezoning and a special use permit in terms of the burden of proof? Mr. Harris stated that with a rezoning, it is encumbent upon the petitioner to show cause why the property should be rezoned. With a special use permit, which this request is, it is encumbent upon the City to show cause why the special use permit should be denied. So, if this request is denied, the Planning Commission must give substantial reasons for that denial. Ms. Hughes stated she would like to remind the Planning Commission members and the audience that they are dealing with a special use permit to allow a two-family dwelling unit in a single family dwelling area. If the permit is granted, i't amounts to about the same as a rezoning. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Doyle if he had considered having two lots instead of three lots. It would require moving some houses, but would give the large brown house more yard area and would provide a larger lot to get the building farther back from East River Road. Mr. Doyle stated he has considered that, but in looking at the economics of it, it is just too hard to just take down houses. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated again that because of a special agreement with the Water Department of St. Paul that would allow the use of the St. Paul Waterworks property as a portion of lot size, this lot meets the lot requirements for a duplex. The City Council approved the plat on May 17, 1976. He stated that even if the special use permit was revoked, the lot was still buildable because of the approval of the plat. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Ms. Hughes stated that because this lot is so small and is located off East River Road, it seems to create a lot of problems in terms of noise and vehicle exhaust emissions which would concern her about having anyone live there. It also seems .out of character with the rest of the neighborhood which is single family. Since there are going to be some bikeway easements along East River Road, it seems the smart thing to do is deny the special use permit, and maybe the time will come when a single family home can be built on the lot. The special use permit seems to be a way around rezoning at this time and that did not appeal to her. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed totally with Ms. Hughes. The neighborhood is all single family and this is not compatible or desirable. Ms. van Dan stated she also agreed with Ms. Hughes. There is a lot of traffic in that area. She was also concerned about a two-story building obstructing the view of southbound traffic on East River Road. If fence or bushes were put in along the lot, she would also be concerned about the eastbound traffic on Osborne Way seeing the southbound traffic coming down East River Road. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-06, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC.: PER SECTION 205.051, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX IN R-1 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS) ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LEIGH TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 31 OSBORNE WAY N.E., FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE LOT FROM NOISE AND VEHICLE POLLUTION. 2. THE DANGERS OF TRAFFIC FROM A DRIVEWAY AND MULTIPLE CARS AT THAT LOCATION. 3. IT IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Ms. Hughes stated it was very obvious that the noise levels along East River Road could be very high at certain times during the day. It is an extremely busy road and when the bridge across the river is built in Coon Rapids,.particularly if there is access onto East River Road, that would make East River Road as busy as University Avenue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, VAN DAN, GABEL, HUGHES, AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, SVANDA AND OQUIST VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-2. l li b REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 18, 1981 PAGE 3 3 RECEIVING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 6, 1981: 3 A CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #81-06 TO ALLOW bcx A DUPLEX IN R-1 ZONING, 31 OSBORNE WAY, LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC.: Mayor Nee stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this special use permit to allow a duplex in an R-1 zone. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated in this area there are essentially single family homes on three sides and commercial property along East River Road, however, the developer has found it is easier to obtain financing to develop this property as a duplex, rather than a single family home and is proposing to construct a building to house two families, with sufficient off-street parking. Mr. Flora stated, at the Planning Commission public hearing, four neighbors were present and voiced comments against this request for a special use permit. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit because they felt there would be adverse environmental impacts on the lot from noise and vehicle pollution; _the dangers of traffic from a driveway and multiple cars at that location; and it is out of character with the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial of the special use permit, SP #81-06, based on the same criteria cited by the Commission, as follows: (1) The adverse environmental impacts on the lot from noise and vehicle pollution; (2) The dangers of traffic from a driveway and multiple cars at that location; and (3) It is out of character with the neighborhood. Further, there were also objections by the neighbors at the public hearing before the Planning Comission. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mr. Doyle, the petitioner, felt this would provide a buffer for the single family homes in the area. He pointed out the people who would face the front of this building didn't have a great deal of objection, and those speaking against it, lived on 75th Way. Mr. Doyle stated he is a firm believer in providing affordable housing for people, and in today's market, fit is harder than ever. Councilwoman Moses stated probably the reason people objected to double bungalows was concern for the type of people that may be renting the units. She felt because of the amount of rent, the units would probably be taken care of by those who could afford to live there. Mr. Doyle stated he has the same type of duplex in his neighborhood in New Brighton and they are located on Mississippi about one block west of Silver Lake Road. Councilwoman Moses felt putting a single family home on that lot didn't make much sense, but theneighbors in the area are objecting and it makes it difficult to vote for when there are objections. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated one point made was it would make a bad situation worse to put a relatively large building on this lot. Mr. Doyle pointed out that FHA has turned down loans for single family homes on these lots because of the high noise level and noxious fumes. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilman Ftizpatrick, Councilman Sechneider, Councilwoman Moses, and Councilman Barnette voted in favor of the motion. MA io o REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 18, 1981 PAGE 4 Mayor Nee voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously by a 4 to 1 vote. 3 *� CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT, LS #81-04, TO MAKE BUILDABLE 17 LOT, 6301 EAST RIVER ROAD, JOHN R. DOYLE: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the property is on East River Road, east of 63rd and involves three parcels, Lots 12, 13, and 14, Fridley Park Addition. Mr. Flora stated the County is purchasing 32 feet from Lot 12 for additional right-of-way for the East River Road improvement, and the request is to split off the east 8 feet of Lot 12 and the west 9 feet of Lot 14 to add to Lot 13. He stated the County is contending, with the lot splits, there would be a 57 foot buildable lot for development. W. Flora stated the reason for this lot split is to determine if, in fact, there is a buildable lot for the remaining property. He pointed out, with the lot split, the lot would be 57 feet wide by 132 :feet deep, with 7,524 square feet. The remaining lot would have a 71 foot frontage and 9,372 square feet. Mhr. Flora stated if the lot split request is denied, there should be something in the record that states if the County does acquire this property, this property be tied together in some way with Lot 13 so the 48 feet would not go tax forfeit. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request for the lot split for the follwoing reasons: (1) It is inconsistant with the neighborhood; (2) It is a corner lot which is really too small and too close to a busy highway; (3) Tha traffic problem that could be generated by driveways so close to East River Road; and (4) The adverse environmental impacts from noise and vehicle pollution. Mr. Doyle, the petitioner, stated the problem is that the County only wants to take 32 feet and is saying to him he has a buildable lot and all he has to do is ask for a variance. He stated the lot split was requested so they would have the necessary total square footage and buildable space. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he is inclined to agree with the Planning Commission that this lot.split would create a small lot very close to the highway and force building too close to the highway because of the size of the lot. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request for a Lot Split, #81-04, for the following reasons as cited by the Planning Commission: (1) It is inconsistent with the neighborhood; (2) It is a corner lot which is really too small and too close to a busy highway; (3) The traffic problem that could be generated by driveways so close to East River Road; and (4) The adverse environmental impacts from noise and vehicle pollution. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Councilman Barnette stated he is aware of another lot on East River Road where the same situation applies and where the County came in with an extremely low offer. He stated the County is probably saying the owners have a buildable site, but the City is now saying they are not going to let them build on it. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimoulsy. W STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF ANOKA TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Leigh Investments, Inc., Plaintiff, ) vs. STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL The City of Fridley, ) File No. Defendant. ) The above -entitled matter having been brought by Plaintiff, the Defendant having answered the Complaint, and there having been discovery commenced in this action, it is now the desire of both parties to reach a stipulated agreement in this matter and to resolve by this stipulation all matters between the parties that concern the subject matter of the instant lawsuit. The parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: I. That the City of Fridley shall forthwith grant a special use permit and a building permit to Plaintiff for construction of a duplex dwelling unit at 20 Osborne Way N.E., legally described as Lot 4, Block 2, Leigh Terrace. Said duplex shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications presently on file with the City of Fridley. 2. Plaintiff, Leigh Investments, Inc., shall give up its claim for the construction of a duplex dwelling at 31 Osborne Way N.E., legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Leigh Terrace, and agrees hereby to dismiss its claim with regard to said Lot 3, Block 1, Leigh Terrace. 3. Both parties agree that, in consideration of the above, they shall enter into this Stipulation of Dismissal and are forever barred from further litigating the merits of the instant action. Dated this day of , 1982. LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. CITY OF FRIDLEY: By: By: ohm R. Doyle, P ident By: 4 C 1