VAR 06.81CITY OP FRIDL.EY, SUBJECT
rV?INNr=50TA COMMISSION APPLICATION
RE'erIEVY
ent/ Win• ttiumtttev I v,;gg Approved by
FILE NO/ A ESS < ' F b ATE
coMPLr r✓v W C4- cL�iyST ��j J
RETUR r\l1�111olG gyp. °� j �' ❑UE DATE --
COMMENTS
. f
ARK
/0,664,/ defer e ,A/c,,
�®4% te e -e eVa
n"K Nor
Xj-
Vale 1
Q>
Q)
--1
SUBJ'- CT
City OF
r'-�:a'1.Ur'jJVF-RSfTV AVE, NO.
01110LEY, PAN; E;5e-3,! (C. -I -an. E571- 04tM
ADDRESS 7//�
APPEALS COMMISSION:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
VARIANCES
DATE
._ .=1 APPROVED DISAPPROVED— DATE 7-14— 21 NO.
REQUIRED: YES—k
CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED
�
STIPULATIONS: 7xgra
DATE NO*
NAME FEE S RECEIPT No. 7,7
LOT NO. BLOCK NO. TRACT OR ADDITION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 77
VARIANCE REQUEST(S): (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances,
etc., where applicable)
List specific hardship(s) which req uires the variance(s):
-7;e-
�ATfi2-0 . /JR/
ADDRESS -7111) /1' yo
f
SIGNATURE—
TELEPHONE NOS—)1—
VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY
July 9 , 1981 ---y--~y- --=-w= -= -- --
Board members notified olineeting by List mernbers,
date hotified, and "'fes" or "iso" for plans to a tend hearing.
Plan
Hame date To Attend
Gable
Barna _
Plemel `
Gerou
_ Hippg!n
Person making appeal
nntified:
of iowing pruper•Ly umurb ilav►tty NruNCr L -y wi w—, —v jr-L.
By Whom �
Name
ate
Phot it
l ed
Mr. Edward Dittell-184 71st Way N.E.
M/M Alien Rolland -188 71st Way N.E.
M/M Howard Crabtree -7100 RI_Uryiew T rraS
._#
M/M William May 7110 Rim r -y ew Terrace N_F
Heidi S Licht --7121 Riverview, Terrace
-
-
M/M PePj to A_ day -71 n9 Riverview Terrace N
M/M Jphn Bass -71.17 Rivervie, Tarr gA a E
MM -
M/M Roger Claesgens-7130 Rivertiew Terrace N
E.
Eunice Engelhardt -7120 Riverview Terrace N.E,
M/M Douglas Hermanson-180 71st Way N.E.
i
Indepent School District 14
Lake Dr INC
Fridley, Mn 55432
Department of Natural Resources
Centennial Office Building
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., PRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
'%"!T`; COUNCIL
AC" M TAKEN NOT T rtc
On AUgUst 3. 1981: _, ttjc: Fridley City Council offlciitil
approved your request forVariance�__�
with th-- stipulations listed below:
None
If you have any questions regarding t�,e above C1Ct1on, pleas: call the
Llominunity Development Off -ice at 571-3450.
Ji_a/de
Si►�C=aY s
aEP.Rt0LC L. BOArl
C li:.y Planner
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the sta termen ;: below, and return
one copy to tale City of Fridley,
C�rc�ir with `cion. taken.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
® 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Op August 3, 1981 , the Fridley City Council officially
approved your request for Variance
with the stipulations listed below:
None
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the
Community Development Office at 571-3450.
Sincerely,
RDLD L. BOARMAN
JLB/de/--fi
yPlanner
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return
one copy to the City of Fridley.
cur with actio taken.
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
July 3, 1981
s hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
duct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 Univer-
nue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1.981 in regard
allowing matter:
A request for a variance to the Interim Development Regulations
for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical.'Area, Section G,
4, (B,2) to reduce to 97 feet, 2 inches, the requirement that
in Urban Devdloped Districts, no structure or road shall be
placed less than 100 feet from the normal highwater mark of the
River, and no less than 40 feet from blufflines, to allow the
construction of a 12' by 21' three season porch on Lot 4, Block 1,
Marion's Terrace, the same being 7110 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
PATRI01A GABEL
CHAI RW01.AN
APPEALS COMMISSION
CITY OF FRIDLEY - .
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571.3450
July 3, 1981
;otice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of 'Fridley
W
ill conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 Univer-
Site Avenue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1.981 in regard
to the following matter:
A request for a variance to the Interim Development Regulations
for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical,Area, Section G,
4, (B,2) to reduce to 97 feet, 2 inches, the requirement that
in Urban Devdloped Districts, no structure or road shall be
placed less than 100 feet from the normal highwater mark of the
River, and no less than 40 feet from blufflines, to allow the
construction of a 12' by 21' three season porch on Lot 4, Block 1,
Marion's Terrace, the same being 7110 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
PATRIC1A GABEL
CHA I RWOMAN
APPEALS COMMISSION
713Z 1 �-e.rr.
7fe,S- lecvecv�
OL
I
%/ o o Ids -e -,.- h' e C
Item #2, July 14, 1981
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7110 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
The purpose for the standards and guidelines as laid out by the Interim
Development Regulations for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
are as follows:
A. To protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional
resource for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens for the state, region and nation;
B. To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional,
and national resource;
C. To preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and
historical value for the public use;
D. To protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the
national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and
recreational systems; and
K. To protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of
the corridor.
In keeping with the above, the public purpose served by the critical
areas designation, Section G4, b2, states that there must be 100 foot
setback from the normal high water mark of the river.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to build a 12 foot by 21.88 foot deck. If the deck size was
less than 12 feet deep, it would be inadequate in size."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
In keeping with Section J3 of the Interim Development Regulations for
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the local unit of government
may grant a variance from the strict compliance of the setback of the
interim regulations after an administrative hearing conducted according to
the regulations of that local unit of government, and may be granted only
then, after the following findings are made:
1. The strict enforcement of the setback or height restrictions will
result in unnecessary hardship. "Hardship" as used in the consideration
of a dimension variance means that the property in question can not be
put to a reasonable use under the dimension provision of these Interim
Development Regulations.
2. There are exceptional circumstances unique to the property that were
not created by a landowner after April 25, 1975.
3. The dimension variance does not allow any use that is not a compatible
use in the land use district in which the property is located.
4. The dimension variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality as established by these Interim Development Regulations.
5. The dimension variance will not be contrary to the Order.
Item #2► July 14, 1981
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7110 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
The purpose for the standards and guidelines as laid out by the Interim
Development Regulations for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
are as follows:
A. To protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional
resource for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens for the state, region and nation;
B. To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional,
and national resource;
C. To preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and
historical value for the public use;
D. To protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the
national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and
recreational systems; and
E. To protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of
the corridor.
In keeping with the.above, the public purpose served by the critical
areas designation, Section G4, b2, states that there must be 100 foot
setback from the normal high water mark of the river.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to build a 12 foot by 21.88 foot deck.. If the deck size was
less than 12 feet deep, it would be inadequate in size."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
In keeping with Section J3 of the Interim Development Regulations for
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the local unit of government
may grant a variance from the strict compliance of the setback of the
interim regulations after an administrative hearing conducted according to
the regulations of that local unit of govezmment, and may be granted only
then, after the following findings are made:
1. The strict enforcement of the setback or height restrictions will
result in unnecessary hardship. "Hardship" as used in the consideration
of a dimension variance means that the property in question can not be
put to a reasonable use under the dimension provision of these Interim
Development Regulations.
2. There are exceptional circumstances unique to the property that were
not created by a landowner after April 25, 1975.
3. The dimension variance does not allow any use that is not a compatible
use in the land use district in which the property is located.
4. The dimension variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality as established by these Interim Development Regulations.
5. The dimension variance will not be contrary to the Order.
Appeals Commission Meeting - July 14, 1981 Page 4
Mr. Clark aske3 if the bottom of the sign would be 11 feet above Main Street and
the top 14 feet above that making the total height 37 feet off gound and Ms.
Jorgensen said that was correct. Referring to the line in the ordinance that
reads, "... the maximum height for a sign intended to be viewed from a highway is
25 feet above lot grade, and in this instance its 25 feet above Main street, and
the 25 foot maximum height may be computed from the centerline of the traveled
highway." Shairwoman Gabel felt there might we a better way to write "may" and a
better way to address the grade levels. Mr. Clark stated the primary intent was
ground below the freeway-,- as with the sign on 7th Street.
Mr. Barna said his main concern is not covered in the ordinance, that being a
visual distraction in a high safety area especially with construction coarsing up;
he would prefer that there be no additional distractions. Mrs. Gerou agreed with
Mr. Barna.and Chairwoman Gabel reiterated her concern about safety in that ex-
tremely accident prone section of the freeway. She further felt doubtful that a
variance has actually been demonstrated nor an extreme hardship.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that the Appeals Commission recommends
to the City Council denial of the request for variances pursuant to Chapter 214 of
the Fridley City code, to reduce the distance between advertising'signs from the
minimum of 1000 feet to 806 feet, and reduce the distance from a residential area
from the required 500 feet to 400 feet, to allow the construction of a 49 ft.
by 14 ft. billboard, to be located in the Holiday Store parking lot in the
Northast . Quadrant of I.694 and Main Street, on Part of Lot 13, Auditor's Sub-
division No. 155, the same being 5591 Main Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota,
as the Appeals Commission cannot see a definite hardship in not being allowed
to place a sign there; that by information contained in the Minnesota Department
of Transportation reports, it is a high traffic and safety hazard area; that
there will be a large amount of construction in this area in the next few
years; that there is a large amount of traffic congestion in that area during the
rush hour; that the loss of signs in the area, voluntary or involuntary, is not
a valid hardship. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE INTERIM DEV
RIVER DORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA, SECTI,
INCHES, THE REQUIRF LNT THAT IN URB
ROAD SHALL BE PLACED LESS THAN 100;
THE RIVER, AND NO LESS THAN 40 _ FEET
OF A 12' BY 21' THREE -SEASON PORCH
SAME BEING 711- RIVERVIEW TERRACE N
7110 Riverview Terrace N.E., Fridle
PMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE MISSISSIPPI
G, 4,__(B,2), TO REDUCE TO 97 FEET, 2
DEVELOPED DISTRICTS, NO STRUCTURE OR
IT FROM THE NORMAL HIGHWATER MARK OF
.OM BLUFFLINES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCT
LOT 4, BLOCK 1 MARION'S TERRACE, THE
(Request by Mr. & Mrs. William May,
MN 55432) .
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Hippen, to open the Dublic hearing. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
AT 8:16 P.M.
Mr. William May, 7110 Riverview Terrace; Mr. Crabtree, 7100 Riverview Terrace;
Mrs. Barb Gunderson, 7120 Riverview Terrace; Mr. and Mrs. Roger Classgens, 7130
Riverview Terrace and Mrs. Eunice Engelhardt, 7130 Riverview Terrace,were present.
r"
Appeals Commission Meeting _= July 14, 1981 Page 5
Chairwoman Gabel read the Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7110 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC_ PURPOSE SERVED BY RE UIREMENT•
The purpose for the standards and guidelines as laid out by the Interim
Development Regulations for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
are as follows:
A. To protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional
resource for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens for the state, region and nation=
B. Th prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional,
and national resources
C. To preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and
historical value for the public use;
D. To protect and.preserve the river as an essential element in the
national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and
recreational systems; and
E. To protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of
the corridor.
In keeping with the above, the public purpose served by the critical
areas designation, Section G4, b2, states that there must be 100 foot
setback from the normal high water mark of the river.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to build a 12 foot by 21.88 foot deck: If the deck size was
less than 12 feet deep, it would be inadequate in size."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
In keeping with Section J3 of the Interim Development Regulations for
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the local unit of government
may grant a variance from the strict compliance of the setback of the
interum regulations after an administrative hearing conducted according to
the regulations of that local unit of government, and may be granted only
then, after the following findings are made:
1. The strict enforcement of the setback or height restrictions will
result in unnecessary hardship. "Hardship" as used in the consideration
of a dimension variance means that the property in question can not be
put to a reasonable use under the dimension provision of these interim
Development Regulations.
2. There are exceptional circumstances unique to the property that were
not created by a landowner after April 25, 1975.
3. The dimension variance does not allow any use that is not a compatible
use in the land use district in which the property is located.
4. The dimension variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality as established by these Interim Development Regulations.
S. The dimension variance will not be contrary to the Order.
Appeals Commission Meeting July 14, 1981 Page 6
. e
Mr. Clark showed the Commission some drawings, an aerial view and photos of the
house. Chairwoman Gabel said Mr. May has a different hardship that she noticed
when she visited the area because he had already started building the deck when
he found out he had a problem. Mr. May said the original plans were to have the
house built four feet closer to the river with an 8 foot deck and when he de-
cided to build a 12 foot deck, he thought there would be no problem until Mr. Clark
came out, tchecked the setback and foti$d out that they would be 2 feet
6 inches over the line at one corner of the deck and that Mr. Clark informed that
he would have to apply for a variance. He said they are asking for 2 feet 10
inches. Mr. May stated the hardship in changing it now because they have the
footings in and making it 10 feet would make an awful small 10 -foot screened in
porch. Mr. May brought a letter signed by nine of his neighbors that could not
make it to the meeting indicating that they have no objection to the variance.
Chairwoman Gabel read the letter from his neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Barna,
seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to receive the letter from Mr. May's neighbors in favor
of the variance. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. May said the house was built where it was to accomodate two big oak trees
on the property. Mrs. Gunderson stated she was the neighbor to the north of
Mr. May and that she is new in the neighborhood, having bought the house one year
and one month ago. She said it was very discouraging for her to be at this
meeting because she has to let people know she is not in agreement with Mr. May's
plan. Chairwoman Gabel asked her what house she lives in and Mrs. Gunderson said
it is a 32 -year old log cabin and that Mr. May's house was built very close to
the property line and that she has three windows that are completely blocked by
a gray, stucco wall. She said she does get some relief from the window in the
southwest corner. She stated she was asking to have some view left out of that
window that, even if it is only 2 and a half feet, it would still make a difference.
She said she has a 9 foot by 20 foot screened -in porch and feels that has the
hardship by having a view obstructed. Mrs.' Gunderson said she wanted to build
a garage but adjusted her plans because of the code restrictions. Chairwoman
Gabel assured her that the commission does not "rubber stamp" anything and they
are interested in the neighbors viewpoints and that is why they are notified.
She further stated that the purpose of this commission is to recognize the fact
that there are exceptions to every rule and building code; 'it is their job to
see if, indeed, Mr. May has a hardship. Chairwoman Gabel stated that, if
Mrs. Gunderson wanted to build a garage, she has the same right to come in and
ask for a variance. She further stated that the variance Mr. May is asking for
is not that large and he could still build it three feet less.
Mr. Classgens said he was the neighbor to the north of Mrs. Gunderson and that
he has no position on this except that Mrs. Gunderson is purchasing the home on
contract for deed from his mother-in-law, Mrs. Engelhardt, and they did not con-
template that there would be any more building on Mr. May's side. Mrs. Classgens
asked Chairwoman Gabel to read the names of the people who signed the letter for
Mr. May. Chairwoman Gabel read the names (some could not be read because of
handwriting): John Bass, Mr. & Mrs. Alvie, Mr. and Mrs. Hermanson, Mr. and Mrs.
Rolin, Mr. and Mrs. Crabtree. Mrs. Classgens stated that, with the exception of
Mr. & Mrs. Crabtree, no one else lives there. Chairwoman Gabel stated that
everyone who lives within 200 feet is notified. Mrs. Classgens felt they don't
have as much right as Mrs. Gunderson does and wondered if it is going to spoil
the way the neighborhood looks and the way the riverbank is being used.
a
Page 3.
Appeals Commission Meeting - July 14, 1981
Mrs. Gerou asked why they would not wait until 1984 and Ms. Jorgensen said it
was because they have lost two signs. Mrs. Gerou then asked if these signs
bring in any revenue to the city and Ms. Jorgensen said no, they would only
benefit in that it would be less of a nonconformance than it is now.
Chairwoman Gabel thought it would be helpful to give some background about the
billboards and sign committee. She said Naegele had a good deal of input on the
sign committee. She said the committee did not want signs up but a consensus was
reached to allow billboards but to -make code somewhat restrictive. She added
that there is a large proliferation of signs in the area of Highways 47 and 65
and I694. Ms. Jorgensen said they are asking to stay at status quo and the
poster sign in the middle is on wood poles and the superstructure is not nice -
looking and they would be straightening that out and making it nice and clean.
Mr. Barna asked about the proximity to the intersection and what is considered
the intersection. Mr. Clark said it would be where University crosses I694.
Chairwoman Gabel felt that this may have to be taken back to Planning for a
more exact definition.
Ms. Jorgensen said if the Commission was worried about the sign possibly affecting
traffic and possible accidents, that she could not imagine a billboard 300 feet
away affecting the ramp. Chairwoman Gabel brought out a report from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation regarding accidents between 7th Street and East
River Road which showed that there had been 306 accidents in that area within a
2 -year period (Qhairwoman Gabel had this report from another matter). She felt
that the ramp located there is so short and accelerates under the railroad bridge
that there could be a potential hazard and felt very strongly about adding
anything there. Mr. Jorgensen said studies have been done by the Federal Highway
Administration on effects of signs and traffic accidents and said they determined
that they could not pinpoint an accident that was caused by a sign. Chairwoman
Gabel felt people are not going to admit to looking at a signwhile they bumped
into the person in front of them and she does have a concern about that.
She stated that are three signs along there and along 7th Street and she had
some serious reservations about adding to that potential hazard. She also felt
that Naegele has not been able to identify a real clear-cut hardship; that taking
down a sign is not a valid reason. Ms. Jorgensen said she realizes that economic
hardship is not enough for a business but that Naegele does business here and tried
to be part of the community. She also felt that they would be aesthetically im-
proving the area.
Mr. Barna was concerned about the sign that was going to be left up until 1984
and Ms. Jorgensen said their plan would be to move it to the other side.
Chairwoman Gabel stated that if this variance was turned down and Naegele came in
again in 1984 and the other sign had been taken down, they would still need a
variance for the residential requirement. Ms. Jorgensen felt that the barrier
protects the residential area. Chairwoman Gabel she she understands what Ms.
Jorgensen was saying about the barrier protecting residential but she felt that
the i§barrier is not a significant reason for granting the variance. Ms. Jorgensen
said that 500 feet from residential is the largest in the Twin Cities area.
Chairwoman Gabel stated that part of theproblem is that there is such a prolifera-
tion of signs in this city and she feels bound to what came out of the sign
committee (the sign committee represents a very large cross-section of this
community). She also felt that, because of the bad acceleration ramp, it would
be better if the sign were someplace else.
.
Appeals Commission Meeting - July 14, 1981 Page 2.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"The nearest sign is located on the east side of the railroad tracks and
806 feet from the proposed sign. Upon completion of the construction of
the bridge planned for 1984, Naegele will move the sign at the railroad
tracks to the west side of the tracks thereby conforming to the 1000 foot
spacing requirement between signs. Therefore, our application is for a
spacing variance needed only.tomporarily."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STUT REVIEW:
This sign is to be located in the southwest corner of the Holiday Village
parking lot and positioned to be viewed from I-694. The sign will be
approximately 400 feet from the residential area that is south of I-694
and approximately 806 feet from the existing billboard to the west.
The Appeals Commission should examine the real need for this sign and
give attention to the following:
1. How can the desire to place another billboard be a legitimate hardship?
2. Were the conditions for placement of billboards to be very firm
requirements?
Denial of this petition should be considered and Naegele can wait until
future highway changes take place that will necessitate relocation of
their existing sign.
Mr. Clark reported, that, after the Staff Report was typed, it was noted by another
field inspection of the site there was another Naegele billboard between Main
Street and I694. Ms. Jorgensen stated that in their application it says. "...
Upon approval of this application and before construction of theproposed sign,
Naegele will remove the advertising sign presently located in the NW Quadrant
of I-694 and County Road 102." She further stated that this meant they would
remove that sign if they get this new sign approved. She then showed the Commi-
ssion the existing billboard on the aerial view of the area and showed them where
the single poster sign is located and where the new one would be located.
She eitplained that when construction of the bridge is completed in 1984, they
plan to take the other sign down and move it and then they would meet the 1,000
foot distance requirement. She said as far as the distance from the residential
area, there would be 400 feet and that there is also a sound barrier that protects
residential. She also explained that they have taken two other signs down in
the area and that is why they are making an application for this new sign.
She also stated that when they take down the sign next door and put up the new
sign there will be less of a nonconformance than there is right now and it would
also be an improvement. She stated there is a sound and visual barrier for the
residential requirement. She further stated that she realizes that economic hard-
ship is not enough for businesses but they did lose two signs. She reiterated
that this would be less of a nonconformance than it is right now by taking out the
sign in the middle and by 1984, they would be .relocating - the sign by the
railroad tracks. She stated that if the City wanted it, they would get rid of
the signs now.
A.
y CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1981 _ _ PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Gabel called the Appeals Co ission Meeting of July 14, 1981, to
order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: P icia Gabel, Jean Gerou, ilex Barna, Donald Happen
Members Absent: J Plemel
Others Present: arrell Clark, City of Fridley
APPROVE APPEALS C MMISSION MINUTES OF
'23,_1981: a
MOTION by Mr. Ba , seconded by Mr. H pp , to approve<the minutes of June 23, 1981,
as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VO AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IMOUSLY.
1. REQUEST F01§ VARIANCES PURSUANT O PHAPTW 214 F THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE,
TO REDUCE 7,8E DISTANCE BETWEENADVXRTISIOG SI S FROM THE MINIMUM OF 1000
FEET TO 806 FEET AND REDUCE T)HE I)ISTANCt FROMIA RESIDENTIAL AREA FROM
THE REQUIRED 500 FEET TO 400 VEEV, TO AVLOW M CONSTRUCTION OF A 49 FT.
BY 14 FT. BILLBOARD TO BE LOC IN THE HOLIdAY STORE PARKING LOT IN
THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF I.rq 4 AM MAIO STREEJT, ON PART OF LOT 13,
AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 15 , 7)HE S BEING 5591 MAIN STREET N.E.
(Request bj�Nancy Jorgensen,fNa gele om4,tdoor 4dvertising Company of the
Twin Cities Inc., 1700 Wes' 78 h Strut, Mi eapolis', MN 55423.)
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by, s Gerou' to op n the pR lic hearing. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOING AYE, CHAIR DEC PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M.
Ms. Nancy Jorgensen,, 1700 West 78th treet' Minne olis, was present.
x
Chairwoman Gabel rea the Staff Re rt:
ADMINIST TIVE STAFF REPORT
5591 fain Street N.E.
A.
SERVED
Section 214.046, G3, requires J minimum distance of 1000 feet between
billboards on the same side of the street right of way.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollution
and excessive use of billboards.
Section 214.046, G6, requires a minimum distance of 500 feet beween a
billboard and any residential district, park, or playground.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollutil
near a residential area and excessive use of billboards.
4 Appeals Commission Meeting - July 14, 1981 _ Page 7
Mr. Crabtree stated that he has lived in that area for a long time and feels
that Mrs. Gunderson has probably one of the best views of the river and that
view will not be shut off by 2 feet and 10 inches. He stated that Mr. May had
some problems building his house because of the two big oak trees. He said he
would only sell the lot to Mr. May if he promised not to destroy those trees.
Mr. Crabtree felt strongly that everyone should be.able to put a deck on the
back of their house and that this is just a corner of the porch. He stated that
he has no objection at all to the variance request.
Mrs. Gerou asked Mrs. Gunderson if she objects to the porch completely. Mrs.
Gunderson stated she was surprised that there was a porch being built and she
checked with Mr. Clark and found out there was room for a 9 foot porch. Mrs.
Gerou then asked her if that would have stopped her from buying the house.
Mrs. Gunderson stated that one of the very negative factors about the house was
that there was this house on the other side. Chairwoman Gabel stated that there
is a large number of trees and along side of the house there are bushes and
trees; that this substantial growth would seem to block the view in any event.
Chairwoman Gabel asked Mrs. Gunderson what rooms in her house face the south.
Mrs. Gunderson said two bedrooms and a bathroom.
Mr. Classgens looked at the aerial view of the area and asked about blufflines.
Mr. Clark stated that in Fridley they don't think they really have a bluffline
because of all the vegetation; but that structures are placed back so they
could not be seen from the river and protect boaters from seeing the house.
Mr. Barna asked Mrs. Gunderson if she was saying that the house blocks direct
sunlight in the windows that face the south. Mrs. Gunderson said it is com-
pletely blocked by the house, that there is no break in that at all. Mr. Barna
asked Mr. May if the roof of the porch is going to be higher or lower than the
existing roof line. Mr. May said it would be the same as the second floor and
the roof of the house would be higher and that the back of his house is almost a
full walk out. Mr. Clark asked him if his house is almost three stories on the
riverside and Mr. May said almost. Mr. Barna asked Mrs. Gunderson if she was
objecting or not objecting. Mrs. Gunderson said her personal feelings are very
negative but as a neighbor she would not try to stop him. Chairwoman Gabel stated
that her viewpoint impacts on the commission and it would be much easier
to decide if everyone was in agreement. Mrs. Gunderson said she will not say
that she is objecting.
Chairwoman Gabel stated Mrs. Gunderson does not get any light now and that the
addition will make the current situation any worse. She stated she would be more
concerned if the rooms were not bedrooms and Mr. May can still build two feet less.
She further stated that 2 feet will not impact on anything in view of the growth
that is there and that Mr. May already has the footings in and she could not
justify for two feet to make him take everything down. Mrs. Gerou felt that as
long as he can still build a deck, the extra 2 and one half feet will not make much
difference. Mr. Hippen stated he agreed with that. Mr. Barna asked Mr. May
why not put the addition farther to the south and Mr. May said because the porch
is attached to the family room.
Appeals Commission Meeting-'Jul�r 3:4i 1-981 .'age 8.
+t+at��
Mr. Barna stated he felt that more than one of the neighbors don't want Mr. May
to be any closer to the river than he is already and he could also see their
point in not wanting to voice a definite, positive "no" and he did not feel
like making a motion in favor.
MOTION by Mr. Hippen, seconded byMr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
AT 9:00 P.M.
MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Hippen, that the Appeals Commission recommend
to the City Council approval of the variance request to the Interim Development
Regulations for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, Section G, 4,
(E,2), to reduce to 97 feet 2 inches, the requirement that in urban developed
districts, no structure or road shall be placed less than 100 feet from the
normal highwater mark of the river, and no less than 40 feet from blufflines,
to allow the construction of a 12 foot by 21 foot three -season porch on Lot 4,
Block 1, Marion's Terrace, the same being 7110 Riverview Terrace N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, THREE VOTING "YES," AND ONE VOTING "NO,"
CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairwoman Gabel reported on windmills and stated that the way it is coming
through the new zoning code is that a person would need a special use permit.
Mr. Clark felt there should be a restriction on number of feet from the lot
line and height. Mr. Barna stated he was in favor of windmills but leery of
a 200 -foot windmill that could possibly fall over. He further stated that he
would rather see hallowed to aLlimit)that whereever it be placed it would not
endanger a neighboring structure and that anything more massive in size would
then require a variance. Mr. Clark suggested a one-to-one ratio, for every foot
in you can go one foot up. Mr. Barna asked if it was still in discussion and
Chairwoman Gabel said the council has it now and it is somewhere in the middle
of readings,and review.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Hippen, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING OF JULY 14, 1981, ADJOURNED AT 9:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
/Ce -4/) nz"Xulc
Deb Niznik,
Recording Secretary
209
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981 PAGE 3
Mr. Qureshi stated if the Council felt there should be a larger area required,
this could be added into the ordinance. He pointed out this is the first
complaint they have had on the ordinance, and it could be referred to the
Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Mayor Nee asked for a report at the next regular meeting regarding the inspection
and what has been accomplished. He further requested the Police Department be
advised of the complaint regarding the children playing in the street, and the
possibility of implementing the crime watch program for this area.
CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE #47 REQUESTED BY MR. & MRS. MAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 7110 RIVERVIEW TERRACE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1981 :
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the Board of Appeals has recommended approval
of this variance by a 3 to 1 vote, and the Planning Commission has received the
minutes of the Board of Appeals relating to this variance request.
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the variance is for a porch, which is
being constructed on the back of this property, to extend 2-1/2 feet into the
100 foot setback:.
Mr. Flora stated there was some discussion at the hearing before the Board of
Appeals as one neighbor felt the variance would preclude her from viewing the
river from her window. He stated the property owner to the South did not object
to the variance and, based on discussions, it was felt the porch extension really
didn't affect the objecting owner's view.
Mr. Bill May was present at the meeting and submitted a drawing of the proposed
addition.
Councilwoman Moses stated she understands Mr. May had the footings poured before
he realized there was a 100 foot setback required.
Mr. May stated he had asked for the variance to be considered this evening because
at the Board of Appeals meeting, Ms. Gabel stated the item would be before the
Council this evening. He stated he had called the City Hall this mording and found
it wasn't on the agenda, and had requested it be considered since it has been five
weeks and he has not been able to work on the addition.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Board
of Appeals and grant a variance of 2-1/2 feet into the 100 foot setback required
for the property at 7110 Riverview Terrace, for the purpose of adding an enclosed
porch. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
1 CONSIDERATION OF 1982 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INCLUDING REVENUE SHARING AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 17, 1981:
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to receive the 1982 preliminary budget and set
the public hearing for August 17, 1981. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
2 CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING THE FEE FOR A SIGN PERMIT FOR ANOKA COUNTY CETA CENTER
RIVERWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER 7150 ET RIVER ROAD):
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the permit fee for the Riverwood
Community Center sign. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1981
PAGE 4
c� RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1981 CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND CRACK SEALING
•� PROJECT BIDS OPENED 7/19/81):
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated bids for this project were opened on
July 29 and 14 contractors had indicated an interest, with seven bids received
ranging from $12,127 to $34,554. Mr. Flora stated Boda Construction was the
low bidder with a bid of $12,127.50. He stated this was substantially lower than
what was anticipated and would recommend this bid be accepted and to authorize the
addition of 25% to the project, for a total cost of $15,159.38.
Mr. Flora stated since this was such a favorable bid, they would like to extend
the crack sealing project down Trollhagen Drive and this is the reason for the
request to authorize a 25% increase to the project.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to receive the bids for the 1981 concrete pavement
and crack sealing project.
Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to award the bid for the 1981 concrete pavement
and crack sealing project to the low bidder, Boda Construction in the amount
of $12,127.50. Seconded by-Councilwoman.Moses to authorize the administration to
increase the 1981 concrete pavement and crack sealing pro?ect by 25% for a total
cost of $15,159.38. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
4 RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE ON 1.5 MILLION GALLON
RESERVOIR BIDS OPENED 7/29/81):
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the bids for the maintenance on -the
1.5 million gallon reservior on Johnson Street were opened on July 29. He
stated 14 contractors had shown an interest, but only two bids were received,
and recommended the bid be awarddd to the low bidder, Boda Construction.
s '.
BASE
PLANHOLDER
BID DEPOSIT
BID
Boda Construction
12325 Cloud Drive N.E.
American Druggist
$12,127.50
Mpls., MN 55434
5%
`
Forby Contracting
Route 3
Reliance Ins. Co.
$15,,262.50
Hinckley, MN 55037
5%
Palda & Sons
1462 Dayton Avenue
Ch. Grp. of Ins. Co.
$17,216.10
St. Paul, MN 55104
5%
All State Paving
10633 - 89th Avenue North
Lumbermans Ins.
$17,704.50
Osseo, MN 55369
5%
Highway Services, Inc.
6317 Cambridge Street
Seaboard Surety Co.
$18,925.50
Mpls., MN 55416
5%
Progressive Contractors
8736 Zachary Lane
Travelers Ind. Co.
$24,053.70
Osseo, MN 55369
5%
Arcon Construction Co.,Inc.
Wausau Ins. Co.
$34,554.30
Mora, MN 55051
5%
Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to award the bid for the 1981 concrete pavement
and crack sealing project to the low bidder, Boda Construction in the amount
of $12,127.50. Seconded by-Councilwoman.Moses to authorize the administration to
increase the 1981 concrete pavement and crack sealing pro?ect by 25% for a total
cost of $15,159.38. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
4 RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE ON 1.5 MILLION GALLON
RESERVOIR BIDS OPENED 7/29/81):
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the bids for the maintenance on -the
1.5 million gallon reservior on Johnson Street were opened on July 29. He
stated 14 contractors had shown an interest, but only two bids were received,
and recommended the bid be awarddd to the low bidder, Boda Construction.
s '.
Avill
ar"
E3d.
. . . . . . . . . .
IW I KJ
ZEN;
I
Avill