SP 79.10Herbst and Suns Const. Co., Inc. Copy
STANDARD FORM PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT ,
Herbst and Sons Const. Co., Inc. Minneapolis -784-8510 N® 7208
2299 Co. Rd. H
New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS
OWNER
571-3450 Att: Darrel Clark AGENT
CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 Universit Ave N.E.rialle Minn 55432 ARCHITECT
TO: ----------------------------------------------------------------------....--------------- ----------------11--------- --------------------------------------- iCONTRACTOR
Madethis ------------------------ Mktbt--------------------------------------------- day of ------------------ 2'_ugus1-------------------------------------- 19.7$
For .... recking of building
--- ------ --- ---- --------
Located at ---- 8I25 _ Riv__eryiew Terrace -
Minn.
in the City of --------------Fridley a------------ _----------------------, State of --------- n - ----
Subject to the Terms and Conditions hereinafter stipulated:
(1) We agree to wreck, dismantle, and/or remove the above described structure--__, in accordance with the following specifications:
Utility disconnections to be made and paid for by: --- owner ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________
Basement to be left clean and empty: Yes ....... .-.---- No________________
Basement to be filled with non-combustible material and dirt: Yes ----- R--------- No_-__-__-_----. (Fill From Site)
Erection of barricade around basement hole after wrecking to be done by -None__ required_-__________________________________
Barricades furnished by contractor to remain his property and returned to him upon release by owner. Contract-
ors liability on property to cease upon erection and acceptance of barricades by owner.
Salvageable material to remain property of owner:. -HERBS T & S ONS CONS T T. CO. ,_ INC .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree Removal: ------ None
Leveling of Lot: .... Rough_grade demolition area only --
Permit to be paid by:.J�_&_SONS CONST.CO.,.._INC.
- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion time: .... _ day_s _after notification to proceed. weather permittin----------------------------------------
Other
, _ -
Other Contract conditions: .... Wreck Building,__leave_slab & fill_ from site. Pull well as best ___
,possible and remove 55 gal, cess pool.
--•---------------------------------------------------------•-----
(2) We will do this work for and in consideration of our receiving all salvage of every nature and description
contained in and/or derived from said wrecking, all of which is to become our property, and in addition thereto
payment to us of the sum of__ RIGHT._1i(Tl`1D_l1ED_ ANp__ty0/100-----------------------Dollars ($--- 00.00_____)
payment of which shall be made as follows______________30__dnys__af er_ completion_ of_ co>b ract,______________________------
(a) Persons or companies furnishing labor or materials for the improvement of real property may enforce a lien upon the im-
proved land if they are not paid for their contributions, even if such parties have no direct contractual relationship with the owner;
(b) Minnesota law permits the owner to withhold from his contractor so much of the contract price as may be necessary to meet
the demands of all other lien claimants, pay directly such liens and deduct the cost thereof from the contract price, or withhold amounts
from his contractor until the expiration of 90 days from the completion of such improvement unless the contractor furnishes to the
owner waivers of claims for mechanics' liens signed by persons who furnished any labor or material for the improvement and who
provided the owner with timely notice.
Contractor's Insurance Coverage: Workmen's Compensation and/or Workmen's Liability, statutory, Public Liability or Bodily injury, $800,000 each person,
$500,000 each accident. Property Damage, $150,000 each accident, $200,000 aggregate.
(4) This proposal, if accepted, shall constitute a contract and agreement between the Wrecking Contractor and the Owner, Architect, or General
Contractor, or any of their agents, for the wrecking of the buildings or structures named herein.
(5) Notwithstanding the reference in previous paragraphs to "wreck, dismantle, and remove;" unless otherwise specifically stated in the specifications,
the Wrecking Contractor reserves the right to dismantle the building or buildings by reducing the floors, walls, ceiling, and roofs to flat panels, or to
remove the building as a whole or substantially as a whole, or by accomplishing such wrecking, dismantling, and removal by such other means as it elects.
(6) This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the buildings or structures when released to the Wrecking Contractor, will be in the same
condition as when this proposal was submitted, and the Owner or his agents agrees to Pay to the Wrecking Contractor the prevailing market price for
any materials or salvage taken from the premises by the Owner or others in the intervening time.
(7) The Wrecking Contractor shall not be held liable for the adequacy or responsibility of any of the Architect's or Owner's plans, specifications or
designs for shoring, bracing, temporary construction, such as canopies and bridges, or the stability of any parts of buildings, party walls, adjoining build-
ings, or parts thereof, which are to he left standing; nor does this probosal include any of the above work unless specifically mentioned herein.
(8) This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the plans and specifications are complete (unless otherwise noted), and no work is to be
included that is not specifically mentioned. Any extra work which the Wrecking Contractor is requested to perform shall be paid for as extra work, and
will be done only on the written direction of the Owner or Architect or their agents.
(0) If the building or structures are dismantled according to contract, but are found to he inviolation of legal reeutrements or property rights of
other's, the Owner shall defend the Contractor against any suit or action brought against him for such violation, and shall pay all fines, damages and
assessments levied against the Wrecking Contractor as a result of such suit or action.
(10) In the event the said buildings or structures are damaged or destroyed prior to the date of the commencement of wrecking, then the Wrecking Con-
tractor shall have the option to rescind this proposal or agreement, and the Owner agrees to such recision. Further, the Owner agrees that the buildings or
structures on said premises are insured against fire and tornado, and that in the event the said property, which is insured, is destroyed or damaged by fire
or tornado before it is dismantled from said premises, the Owner will hold all proceeds of such insurance for the benefit of the Wrecking Contractor to -in-
demnify It for its loss of said buildings or structures.
(11) Unless the contract for this work states a definite per diem bonus and penalty for any specified time or length of time for completion, the Can.
tractor shall not be held liable or be reouired to pay any amount as liquidated damages for delay in completion, and Owner shall waive all claim for dam.
age against said Contractor for his failure to complete the work in a given time.
(12) This instrument shall contain all of the terms and conditions under which the wopk is to be done and shall not be altered or modified except for
an additional written instrument newly signed by both parties.
(13) This proposal, if not accepted under the conditions herein stated, and within ten days from date hereof, ceases thereafter, subject to the option of
the Wrecking Contractor, to be an offer for acceptance.
ACCEPTED: .......................................... 19 ... .
By (Owner - Agent -'*A* rchitect - Contraetorj
Owner's Purchase Order No ....................................
HERBST SONS CONST ., INC.
By: .. -• •-- .........
................
Title __ Vice President
1
r
STANDARD FORM PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
Herbst and Sons Const. Co., Inc. Minneapolis -784.8510
2299 Co. Rd. H
New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS
OWNER
AGENT
ARCHITECT
TO: ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ CONTRACTOR
Madethis---------------------------------------------------------------------------day of---------------------=------------------------------------------- 19_ ---
For------------------------------------ ------=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located at ---------------- - ----------------------------------------------------------- 7 -------------------
----------------------------------------------
inthe City of ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- State of -------------- ---=------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to the Terms and Conditions hereinafter stipulated:
(1) We agree to wreck, dismantle, and/or remove the above described structure____, in accordance with the following specifications:
Utility disconnections to be made and paid for by__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Basement to be left clean and empty: Yes________________ No________________
Basement to be filled with non-combustible material and dirt: Yes________________ No________________
Erection of barricade around basement hole after wrecking to be done by ---- `_--- -------------------- ----------------------------------
Barricades furnished by contractor to remain his property and returned to him upon release by owner. Contract-
ors liability on property to cease upon erection and acceptance of barricades by owner.
Salvageable material to remain property of owner: ... ---------------------------------------- ------- ___------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
TreeRemoval- --------==--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leveling of Lot- ----------------- --- --- - ------
- -
Permit to be paid by: ---------------------,----------- =-- == = = ---------`--••--•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion time: ---------------------------
------------------- -
Other Contract conditions: ------- ----- =---- - - {
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) We will do this work for and in consideration of our receiving all salvage of every nature and description
contained in and/or derived from said wrecking, all of which is to become our property, and in addition thereto
payment to us of the sum of ----------- --------------= -- - = Dollars (�---------=- -----)
payment of which shall be made as follows: ------------------- ------ - ----- - -=--- - ----- ----------=----------------------------
(a) Persons or companies furnishing labor or materials for the improvement of real property may enforce a lien upon the im-
proved land if they are not paid for their contributions, even if such parties have no direct contractual relationship with the owner;
(b) Minnesota law permits the owner to withhold from his contractor so much of the contract price as may be necessary to meet
the demands of all other lien claimants, pay directly such liens and deduct the cost thereof from the contract price, or withhold amounts
from his contractor until the expiration of 90 days from the completion of such improvement unless the contractor furnishes to the
owner waivers of claims for mechanics' liens signed by persons who furnished any labor or material for the improvement and who
provided the owner with timely notice.
Contractor's Insurance Coverage: Workmen's Compensation and/or Workmen's Liability, statutory, Public Liability or Bodily injury, $300,000 each person,
$500,000 each accident. Property Damage, $150,000 each accident, $200,000 aggregate.
(4) This proposal, if accepted, shall constitute a contract and agreement between the Wrecking Contractor and the Owner, Architect, or General
Contractor, or any of their agents, for the wrecking of the buildings or structures named herein.
(5) Notwithstanding the reference in previous paragraphs to "wreck, dismantle, and remove," unless otherwise specifically stated in the specifications,
the Wrecking Contractor reserves the right to dismantle the building or buildings by reducing the floors, walls, ceiling, and roofs to flat panels, or to
remove the building as a whole or substantially as a whole, or by accomplishing such wrecking, dismantling, and removal by such other means as it elects.
(6) This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the buildings or structures when released to the Wrecking Contractor, will be in the same
condition as when this proposal was submitted, and the Owner or his agents agrees to pay to the Wrecking Contractor the prevailing market price for
any materials or salvage taken from the premises by the Owner or others in the intervening time.
(7)'The Wrecking Contractor shall not be held liable for the adequacy or responsibility of any of the Architect's or Owner's plans, specifications or
designs for shoring, bracing, temporary construction, such as canopies and bridges, or the stability of any parts of buildings, party walls, adjoining build-
ings, or parts thereof, which are to be left standing; nor does this probosal include any of the above work unless specifically mentioned herein.
13) This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the plans and specifications are complete (unless otherwise noted), and no work is to be
included that is not specifically mentioned. Any extra work which the Wrecking Contractor is requested to perform shall be paid for as extra work, and
will be done only on the written direction of the Owner or Architect or their agents.
(9) If the building or structures are dismantled according to contract, but are found to be in violation of legal requirements or property rights of
others, the Owner shall defend the Contractor against any suit or action brought against him for such violation, and shall pay all fines, damages and
assessments levied against the Wrecking Contractor as a result of such suit or action.
(10) In the event the said buildings or structures are damaged or destroyed prior to the date of the commencement of wrecking, then the Wrecking Con-
tractor shall have the option to rescind this proposal or agreement, and the Owner agrees to such recision. Further, the Owner agrees that the buildings or
structures on said premises are insured against fire and tornado, and that in the event the said property, which is insured, is destroyed or damaged by fire
or tornado before it is dismantled from said nremises, the Owner will hold all proceeds of such insurance for the benefit of the Wrecking Contractor to -in-
demnify It for its loss of said buildings or structures.
(11) Unless the contract for this work states a definite per diem bonus and penalty for any specified time or length of time for comnletion, the Con-
tractor shall not be held liable or be required to nay any amount as liquidated damages for delay in comnletion, and Owner shall waive all claim for dam-
age against said Contractor for his failure to complete the work in a given time.
(12) This instrument shall contain all of the terms and conditions under which the work is to be done and shall not be 'altered or modified except for
an additional written instrument newly signed by both parties.
(13) This proposal, if not accepted under the conditions herein stated, and within ten days from date hereof, ceases thereafter, subject to the option of
the Wrecking Contractor, to be an offer for acceptance.
ACCEPTED: .......................................... 19.... HERBST AND SONS CONST. CO., INC.
.............................................................. By: --------------- --- ----- •------------------------------
By: ......................................................... Title __---------------------------------------------------------------------- -
(Owner - Agent - Architect - Contractor)
Owner's Purchase Order No ....................................
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE 6 -
UPON A VOICE VOTE,.ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that the request had been recommmended
to Council for approval with stipulations and would go to Council on
August 20, 1R79, and suggested that all interested parties attend.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT a SP #79-10, EXCALIBUR Htion 20
toallow the construction of two neva dwellinas on Lots
27-30, B1ook S Riverview Heights, in CPR -2 zonin flood lain
he same being 8125 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Mr. Harris stated that this item was to be continued for two weeks at
the request of the petitioner.
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to continue the
request for Special Use Permit SP X79-10, for two weeks.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #79-03, by JuhN & UAIL �a'r�ilvus
Split off the Westerly 20 feet of Lot 1 Block 1 Veit's Addition
o Riverview Terrace N.E. and add 1t to Lot 2, Block 2, Veit's
W Te
Mr. Boardman stated that page 23 of the agenda was a plot plan layout.
The plot plan indicates a building to the west which is 23x32 and that
building is not there. What they are planning on doing is splitting
off 20 feet of this lot and adding it on to the house to the west.
Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners an aerial photograph of the area
and explained the situation more clearly. He stated that he understood
that any garage to be located on the property would be located to the
rear of the house with access off Riverview Terrace. Mr. Boardman
explained to the Commissioners where the lot line would be.
John & Gail Estling came forward and showed the Commissioners a copy of
their survey which showed the lot line more clearly.
Ms. Schnabel stated that it was her understanding that the main purpose
of this split was to increase the size of the lot. She asked if that
was correct?
Mr. Harris stated that was correct and it would also give them more
parking which they need. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if.6421 Way was
a dedicated street?
Mr. Boardman stated that he was not sure and that it didn't look like it.
He stated that they couldn't get a snowplow in there if they wanted to.
Mr. Harris suggested they look into that and if it is not vacated, we
should do it.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated he would look into it.
PLANNING COMMISSION -MEET NG, AUGUST 8, .1979 PAGE 5
Ms, Hughes also stated that they should have some stipulations, one of
which would be to close the access near the neighbors property. Also,
they should be asked to keep the parking lot in good order. Chances
are they don't sweep it often enough since the plantings in front are
not taken care of very well. They may need to be asked to do that.
Also, they should be asked to make sure they don't have the children's
activities close to the neighbor's yard. They have a big enough area
to avoid that.
Ms. Schnabel agreed and stated that some consciousness -raising on the
part of the church could be in order especially in regards to the
problems of the neighbors. She felt the two of them could come to a
satisfactory solution. She stated she col.ild understand the concerns
of the neighbor in terms of working nights and sleeping days and the
church should be willing to close off that access.
Mr. Hora agreed.
Mr. Treuenfels also agreed especially in light of the fact that Fridley
does not have another day care center centrally located.
Mr. Harris stated that he felt it was a good proposal with modifications.
He suggested a security fence around the playground equipment for their
own benefit. That kind of equipment would be an attractive nusiance
and the church would be liable. Also, something could be done with
signage for the egress off of Monroe Street indicating that pickup and
drop off traffic should use the access off Monroe Street only.
Mr. Boardman stated that would be required anyway.
Mr. Harris stated that it should be stipulated. He also recommended
that the church put some plantings and vegetative screening along the
neighbor's property line. He stated that they could possibly do this
in a phase program with the fencing and driveway blockage being done
this year and the vegetative screening being done in the Spring.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to recommend to
Count 1 approval of the request for Special Use Permit SP #79-09,
Fridley United Methodist Churchs Per Section 205.051, 3, F, to allow
the church to have a day care center, located on Lots 1-3 and Lots 22-
25, Block 29 Christie's Addition, the same being 666 Mississippi Street
N.E., with the following stipulationss 1) the driveway access to Bennett
Street be chained off during the week beginning with the first day of
businessz 2) proper fence of playground facilities by the first day of
business; 3) the church plants a vegetative barrier -between their
property and the properties located west of the church to be completed
in the Spring of 1980. The plantings will be approved by Staff.
Ms. Finney stated that in regards to the second stipulation, the church
Board'had discussed that and felt that the fence would be more attractive
to children.
Mr. Harris stated that by fencing it they were at least taking action
to prevent someone from using it. If no action were taken, they could
be liable.
Ms. Finney asked how high the fence would have to be?
Mr. Boardman stated that a 4 foot fence would be adequate.
-41=01TY OF FRIDLEY
4431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 812)571.3450
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 Univers 'k;y
Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday; July 31, 1979, in regard to the
following:
Request for variances.pursuant to Chapter
205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the
minimum lot area from the required 7500 square feet
for lots platted before December 29, 1955, to
5584 square feet, and to reduce the requirement
that there be 20 feet between living areas of
adjacent dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet
br less in width, to 10 feet,,to allow the
construction of*two new dwellings in CPR -2
Zoning (flood plain) the same being 8125 and
8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
VIRGINIA $CHNABL-L
CHAIRWOMAN
-APPEALS M•�K' '5tIQN
AS IS OBVIOUS BY THE ATTACHED DIAGRAMS, THE LOTS FOR WHICH WE SEEK THE ABOVE
VARIANCE FALL SHORT OF FRIDLEY'S MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE RESEARCHED
ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PRIOR TO SEEKING SUCH VARIANCE AND HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
OBTAINING THE VARIANCE FOR EACH LOT IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE COURSE OF ACTION.
THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONSIDERATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABOVE LOTS IS
THE SUITABILITY OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION. WE FOUND THAT BOTH LOTS ARE BELOW
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF FILL 70 BRIM THEM
TO BUILDING CONDITION. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REQUIRED FILL PER LOT IS $4;000. IF
THE LOTS -WERE COMBINED, A TOTAL COST OF $$,000 WOULD BE ADDED TO A SINGLE PEICE
OF PROPERTY.
THE PRESENT PRICE OF EACH LOT IS $6,500. IF THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, THIS
PRICE WOULD DOUBLE TO $13,000. ADDED TO THE COST OF THE REQUIRED FILL FOR THE
COMBINED LOT, -THE PRICE OF THE LOT WOULD THEN BE $21,000. OBVIOUSLY THIS SUM
WOULD BE FAR OUT OF THE CURRENT PRICE RADE FOR THE AREA.
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION ALONG THESE LINES IS THE COST OF SODDING, A REQUIREMENT
OF THE CITY. THE AGGREGATE COST OF SODDING THE TWO LOTS IS $2,400. IF THE LOTS
WERE COMBINED, THIS ENTIRE COST WOULD BE PASSED ONTO ONE PEICE OF PROPERTY,
INCREASING THE PRICE OF A SINGLE LOT WHICH IS ALREADY OUT OF ITS MARKET RANGE.
SHOULD A VARIANCE BE GRANTED THE ABOVE LISTED COSTS CAN BE DIVIDED PUTTING
THE PRICE IN THE AREA OF $12,000 WHICH IS CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH CURRENT PRICES
OF THE AREA.
CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, WE HAVE PUT
7625 HIGHWAY 65 N. E. ® FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 ® 786-6911
TOGETHER A PROPOSED HOME PACKAGE FOR EACH OF THE LOTS. THE TOTAL PACKAGE WAS
PRICED AT $67,000. BOTH PACKAGES WERE SUBMITTED FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR FINANCE APPROVAL AND APPRAISAL. THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYERS ARE APPROVED FOR V.A. MORTGAGES. THE V.A. APPROVED BOTH HOMES AS THEY
ARE PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE TWO LOTS. HOWEVER, THE APPRAISAL GIVEN TO
THE PACKAGE WAS ONLY $63,000. THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL WAS
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA. THIS DEMONSTRATES AGAIN, THE IMPRACTIBILITY
OF COMBINING THE TWO LOTS TO BE MARKETED AS A SINGLE LOT FOR A PRICE OF $23,400,
EXCLUSIVE OF ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE.
ATTACHED ARE THREE DIAGRAMS LABLED A, B,. AND C. DIAGRAM A DEPICTS THE SAME
HOUSE PROPOSED FOR EACH OF THE TWO EXISTING LOTS ON A SINGLE COMBINED LOT. WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SECOND LOT, THIS HOME WOULD NOW COST $72,250. EVEN TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL LAND ENCOMPASSED IN THE PACKAGE, THE APPRAISAL
WOULD NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE, ESPECIALLY AS IT WAS NOTED THAT
ADJOINING AREA COMPARABLES WAS THE REASON FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL GIVEN TO OUR
PROPOSED PACKAGES. AS INDICATED IN THIS DIAGRAM, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE PROPERTY
WOULD CERTAINLY BE INCREASED, HOWEVER THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT WARRANT SUCH
AN EXTREME PRICE FOR THIS TYPE HOME.
DIAGRAM B SHOWS A T -SHAPED HOME, 28' BY 46' WITH A FORMAL FOYER AND A 24' BY
30' ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SIZE HOME THAT WOULD FIT THE COMBINED SINGLE
LOT. THE COST OF THIS HOME WOULD BE $87,900. AGAIN,'OUT PRICED FOR THE AREA.
FURTHER, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD NOT CHANGE AND THE
DRAINAGE AREA TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOME WOULD INCREASE ONLY BY 2.5'.
DIAGRAM C SHOWS A 24' BY 40' HOME WITH A 20' BY 24' ATTACHED GARAGE SITUATED
IN LINE WITH EXISTING HOMES. 'IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DRAINAGE AREAS ON BOTH THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE HOME REMAIN THE SAME. THE PRICE OF THIS HOME WOULD
BE $74,900 ALSO OUT OF THE AREA PRICE RANGE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SHORT SIDE LOTS OF OUR TWO PROPOSED HOMES ARE
BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT CERTIFIED WOULD CONSTRUCT. WE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE MEANS OF DRAINAGE IN'THIS MINIMAL AREA TO INSURE AGAINST ANY DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MINIMUM PROPERTY DIMENSION REQUIREMENT. WE BELEIVE THAT
THIS IS A POINT OF CONSIDERATION. HAD THESE PLATS BEEN RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
MINIMUM STANDARD, WE WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERING OUR CURRENT PROBLEM.
WE FEEL THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS EVIDENCE THE NEED FOR.THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS WOULD ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS
WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THEIR PRESENT STATES AND WE DO NOT FORSEE THAT
THE ADJOINING HOMES WOULD INCUR ANY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
HOMES.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
VERY T ULY YOURS,
BORG
YJCE • PRES DENT
0
5431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TELEPHONE ( 512)571-3450
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University
Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 31, 1979 in regard to the
following:
Request for variances pursuant to Chapter
205 of the Fridley City Code., to reduce the
minimum lot area from the required 7500 square feet
for lots platted before December 29, 1955, to
5584 square feet, and to reduce the requirement
that there be 20 feet between living areas of
adjacent dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet
6r less in width, to 10 feet,,to allow the
construction of two new dwellings in CPR -2
Zoning (flood plain) the same being 8125 and
8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
VIRGINIA SCHN.AUL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEAL$ GQMM $,- WN
Item #2 July 31, 1979
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 1B) On a plat recorded before December 29, 1955, the mini-
mum lot area is 7,500 square feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of over-
crowding of a residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on the_
existing water and sewer services, and to avoid reduction of surrounding .
property values.
Section 205.053, 2, (B,3) On parcels of land less than 60 feet in width,-
but not less than 50 feet in width, and are comprised of one or more full
sized lots or parts thereof, on a subdivision or plat recorded before De-.;,..
cember 29, 1955, the minimum required lot width can be lowered to allow
a building on this parcel with the side yard requirements reduced to five
(5) feet minimum on each side subject to the distance between the living
areas in any two adjacent buildings is at least 20 feet.
Section 205.053, 4, b, Two side yards are required, each with a width of not
less than 10 feet.
Public purpose served by these sections of the code is to maintain a minimum
of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to con=
flagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open spaces
around residential structures.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
See Attached Letter dated July 23, 1979
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
These lots are located within the flood plain, therefore a substantial amount
of fill will have to be brought in. This will result in raising these prop-
erties above the neighboring structures. The proposal consists of four 25
foot lots on which the petitioner has proposed to build two homes 10 feet
apart. They are two full stories above grade (approximately 16 feet).
The staff recommends that the Appeals Commission consider denying all vari-
ances for the following reasons and that the petitioner consider building one
house on four lots.
1. The houses would only be 10 feet apart and that will appear to be very
close since the vertical height of the wall is 16 feet.
2. With one house, the degree of slope between the lot line and the elevated
area could be lessened with more distance to make up the difference in
elevation.
A lot area should be left on the lot and a catch basin'installed and be con-
nected to the existing basin on Glencoe. This would allow for a better drain-
age plan as the one proposed does not allow adequate fall away from the exist-
ing home.
Item #2 July 31, 1979
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 1B) On a plat recorded before December 29, 1955, the mini-
mum lot area is 7,500 square feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of over-
crowding of a residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on the
existing water and sewer services, and to avoid reduction of surrounding
property values.
Section 205.053, 2, (B,3) On parcels of land less than 60 feet in width,
but not less than 50 feet in width, and are comprised of one or more full
sized lots or parts thereof, on a subdivision or plat recorded before De-
cember 29, 1955, the minimum required lot width can be lowered to allow
a building on this parcel with the side yard requirements reduced to five
(5) feet minimum on each side subject to the distance between the living
areas in any two adjacent buildings is at least 20 feet.
Section 205.053, 4, b, Two side yards are required, each with a width of not
less than 10 feet.
Public purpose served by these sections of the code is to maintain a minimum
of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to con-
flagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open spaces
around residential structures.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
See Attached Letter dated July 23, 1979
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
These lots are located within the flood plain, therefore a substantial amount
of fill will have to be brought in. This will result in raising these prop-
erties above the neighboring structures. The proposal consists of four 25
foot lots on which the petitioner has proposed to build two homes 10 feet
apart. They are two full stories above grade (approximately 16 feet).
The staff recommends that the Appeals Commission consider denying all vari-
ances for the following reasons and that the petitioner consider building one
house on four lots.
1. The houses would only be 10 feet apart and that will appear to be very
close since the vertical height of the wall is 16 feet.
2. With one house, the degree of slope between the lot line and the elevated
area could be lessened with more distance to make up the difference in
elevation.
LOW
A 1 O area should be left on the lot and a catch basin installed and be con-
nected to the existing basin on Glencoe. This would allow for a better drain-
age plan as the one proposed does not allow adequate fall away from the exist-
ing home.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS:
JULY 23, 1979
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF MINIMUM_'
PROPERTY REQUIREMENT -
LOTS 27 & 28, BLOCK S, AND
LOTS 29 & 30, BLOCK S,
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS
AS IS OBVIOUS BY THE ATTACHED DIAGRAMS, THE LOTS FOR WHICH WE SEEK THE ABOVE
VARIANCE FALL SHORT OF FRIDLEYtS MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE RESEARCHED
ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PRIOR TO SEEKING SUCH VARIANCE AND HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
OBTAINING THE VARIANCE FOR EACH LOT IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE COURSE OF ACTION.
THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONSIDERATION IN''THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABOVE LOTS IS
THE SUITABILITY OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION. WE FOUND THAT BOTH LOTS ARE BELOW
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF FILL TO BRING THEM.
TO BUILDING CONDITION. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REQUIRED FILL PER LOT IS $4,000. IF
THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, A TOTAL COST OF $8,000 WOULD BE ADDED TO A SINGLE PEICE
OF PROPERTY.
THE PRESENT PRICE OF EACH LOT IS $60500. IF THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, THIS
PRICE WOULD DOUBLE TO $13,000. ADDED TO THE COST OF THE REQUIRED FILL FOR THE
COMBINED LOT, THE PRICE OF THE LOT WOULD THEN BE $21,000. OBVIOUSLY THIS SUM
WOULD BE FAR OUT OF THE CURRENT PRICE RANGE FOR THE AREA..
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION ALONG THESE LINES IS THE COST OF SODDING, A REQUIREMENT
OF THE CITY. THE AGGREGATE COST OF SODDING THE TWO LOTS IS $2,400. IF THE LOTS
WERE COMBINED, THIS ENTIRE COST WOULD BE PASSED ONTO ONE PEICE OF PROPERTY,
INCREASING THE PRICE OF A SINGLE LOT WHICH IS ALREADY OUT OF ITS MARKET RANGE.
SHOULD A VARIANCE BE GRANTED THE ABOVE LISTED COSTS CAN BE DIVIDED PUTTING
THE PRICE IN THE AREA OF $12,000 WHICH IS CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH CURRENT PRICES
OF THE AREA.
CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, WE HAVE PUT
i
7625 HIGHWAY 65 N. E. ® FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 o 786-6911
v
i
I ,
TOGETHER A PROPOSED HOME PACKAGE FOR EACH OF THE.. LOTS. THE TOTAL PACKAGE WAS
PRICED AT $67,000. BOTH PACKAGES WERE SUBMITTED FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR FINANCE APPROVAL AND APPRAISAL. THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYERS ARE APPROVED FOR V.A.* MORTGAGES. THE.V.A. APPROVED BOTH HOMES AS THEY
ARE PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE TWO LOTS. HOWEVER, THE APPRAISAL GIVEN TO
THE PACKAGE WAS ONLY $63,000. THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL WAS
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA. THIS DEMONSTRATES AGAIN, THE IMPRACTIBILITY
:OF COMBINING THE TWO LOTS TO!'BE MARKETED AS A SINGLE LOT FOR A PRICE OF $23,400,
EXCLUSIVE.OF ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE
ATTACHED ARE THREE DIAGRAMS LABLED A, B.. AND C. DIAGRAM A DEPICTS THE SAME ,
HOUSE PROPOSED FOR EACH OF THE TWO EXISTING LOTS ON A SINGLE COMBINED LOT. WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SECOND LOT, THIS HOME WOULD NOW COST $72,250. EVEN TAKING.
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL LAND ENCOMPASSED IN THE PACKAGE, THE APPRAISAL
WOULD NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE, ESPECIALLY AS IT WAS NOTED THAT !.-
ADJOINING AREA COMPARABLES WAS THE REASON FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL GIVEN TO OUR
PROPOSED PACKAGES. AS INDICATED IN THIS DIAGRAM, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE PROPERTY
WOULD CERTAINLY BE INCREASED, HOWEVER THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT WARRANT SUCH
AN EXTREME PRICE FOR THIS TYPE HOME.
DIAGRAM B SHOWS A T -SHAPED -HOME, 28' BY 46' WITH A FORMAL FOYER AND A 24' BY
301 ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SIZE HOME THAT WOULD FIT THE COMBINED SIDLE
LOT. THE COST OF THIS HOME WOULD BE $870900. AGAIN, OUT PRICED FOR THE AREA.
FURTHER, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD NOT CHANGE AND THE
DRAINAGE.AREA TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOME WOULD INCREASE ONLY BY 2.5'.
DIAGRAM C SHOWS A 24' BY 40' HOME WITH A 20' BY 24' ATTACHED GARAGE SITUATED
IN LINE WITH EXISTING HOMES. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DRAINAGE AREAS ON BOTH THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE HOME REMAIN THE SAME. THE PRICE OF THIS HOME WOULD
BE $74,900 ALSO OUT OF THE AREA PRICE RANGE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED.THAT THE SHORT SIDE LOTS OF OUR TWO PROPOSED HOMES ARE
BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT CERTIFIED WOULD CONSTRUCT. WE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE MEANS OF DRAINAGE IN'THIS MINIMAL AREA TO INSURE AGAINST ANY DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS.-
WE
ROBLEMS.WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MINIMUM PROPERTY DIMENSION REQUIREMENT. WE BELEIVE THAT
THIS IS A POINT OF CONSIDERATION. HAD THESE PLATS BEEN RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
MNIMUM STANDARD, WE WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERING OUR CURRENT PROBLEM.
WE FEEL THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS EVIDENCE THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS WOULD ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS
WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THEIR PRESENT STATES AND WE DO NOT FORSEE THAT
THE ADJOINING HOMES WOULD INCUR ANY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
HOMES.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
VERY T ULY YOURS,
i `, t
S ORG
YICE'PRESIDENT
,... %,
CITY OF FRIDLEY•
APPEALS *CO1,-1rZISSION MEETING - AUGUST 14, 1979
CALL TO ORDERS
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 14, 1979, meeting of the Appeals
Commission to order at 7130 P.M.
ROLL CALLS
Members Presents Poor. Plemel, Mr. Kemper, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gable,
Mr. Barna
Members Absents - None
Others Presents Clyde Moravetz, Engineer Aide/ Adam.
1. APPROVE APPEALS COT.tiMISSION MINUTES 1 JULY 31, 19-79s
MOTION by'Tvlr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the July 31, 19799
minutes of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
V
E TH_w
OI:1 T
THE
ARE FEET, AND TO REDUCE T71E REQ.UIiiL:iiENT THAT THERE BI: TWENTY
J..i-u.:_,s ab_:a:,ia 1I1 Y.L1'4lz nit_lt:a V.0 ui�l hill W'*
ND 60 FEET OR LESS IN 1IDTH TO 10 FEET TO ALLOva THE CONSTRUCTI
_T:^JO D'�^• ELLINGS IN CPR -2 ZONING FLOOD PLAIN), TIS SAI.... -LE BEING 812
d 81 RIVEILVIEec TERRACE Td
—3 (Request by Excalibur Homes, Inc.
25 Hi�hwav 7'6� PTE. �Prid1 Pv. 1'1-n_
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the Public Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWODIAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.1.7.
Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Ernie Pasborg, to come forward and
read the Administrative Staff Report as followss
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED -BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 1B) On a plat recorded before December 29, 1955, the mini-
mum lot area is 7,500 square feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of over-
crowding of a residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on the
existing water and sewer services, and to avoid reduction of surrounding
property values.
APPEALS 00131ISSION 10ETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 PAGE 2
Section 205.053, 2, (B,3) On parcels of _land less than 60 feet in width,•
but not less than 50 feet in width, and are comprised of one or more full
sized lots or parts thereof, on a subdivision or plat recorded before De-.,.,
cember.29, 1955, the minimum required lot width can be lowered to allow
a building on this parcel with the side yard requirements reduced to five
(5) feet minimum on each side subject to the distance between the living .
areas in any two adjacent buildings is at least 20 feet.
Section 205.053, 4, b, Two side yards are required, each with a width of not
less than 10 feet.
Public purpose served by these sections of the code is.to maintain a minimum
of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to con-
flagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open spaces
around residential structures.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
See Attached Letter dated July 23, 1979
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
These lots are located within the flood plain, therefore a substantial amount
of fill will have to be brought in. This will result in raising these prop-
erties above the neighboring structures. The:proposal consists of four 25
foot lots on which the petitioner has proposed to build two homes 10 feet
apart. They are two full stories above grade (approximately 16 feet).
The staff recommends that the Appeals Commission consider denying all vari-
ances for the following reasons and that the petitioner consider building one
house on four lots.
1. The houses would only be 10 feet apart and that will appear to be very
close since the vertical height of the wall is 16 feet.
2. With one house, the degree of slope between the lot line and the elevated
area could be lessened with more distance to make up the difference in
elevation.
A lot area should be left on the lot and a catch basin'instal'led and be con-
nected to the existing basin on Glencoe. This would allow for a better drain-
age plan as the one proposed does not allow adequate fall -away from the exist-
ing home.
The following two pages consist of the letter referred to in the
Hardship section of the Administrative Staff Report. Lis. Schnabel
read this letter into the record also.
'JULY 23., 1979
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, INNESOTA 55432
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF MINIMUM
PROPERTY REQUIREMENT
LOTS 27 & 28.. BLOCK S., AND
LOTS 29 & 30., BLOCK S,
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AS ISI OBVIOUS BY THE ATTACHED DIAGRAMSp THE LOTS FOR WHICH WE SEEK THE ABOVE
VARIANCE FALL SHORT OF FRIDLEY'S MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE RESEARCHED
ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PRIOR TO SEEKING SUCH VARIANCE AND HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
OBTAINING,THE VARIANCE FOR EACH LOT IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE COURSE OF ACTION.
THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONSIDERATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABOVE LOTS*IS
THE SUITABILITY OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION. WE FOUND THAT BOTH LOTS ARE BELOW
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF FILL TO BRING THEM
TO BUILDING CONDITION. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REQUIRED FILL PER LOT IS $4-000. IF
THE LOTS WERE COMBINED., A TOTAL COST OF $8,,000 WOULD BE ADDED TO A SINGLE PEICE
OF PROPERTY.
THE PRESENT PRICE OF EACH LOT IS $6A500-- IF THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, THIS
PRICE WOULD DOUBLE TO $13,000. ADDED TO THE COST OF THE REQUIRED FILL FOR THE
COMBINED LqTj.-THE PRICE OF THE LOT WOULD THEN BE $21..000. OBVIOUSLY THIS Sum
WOULD BE FAR OUT OF THE CURRENT PRICE RANGE FOR THE AREA.
ANOTH R CONSIDERATION ALONG THESE LINES IS THE COST OF SODDING, A REQUIREMENT
OF THE CIT. THE AGGREGATE COST OF SODDING THE TWO LOTS IS $2,400. IF THE LOTS
WERE COMBINED, THIS ENTIRE COST WOULD BE PASSED ONTO ONE PEICE OF PROPERTY,
INCREASINGITHE PRICE OF A SINGLE LOT WHICH IS ALREADY OUT OF ITS MARKET RANGE.
SHOU A VARIANCE BE GRANTED THE ABOVE LISTED COSTS CAN BE*DIVIDED PUTTING
THE PRICE IN THE AREA OF $12.,000 WHICH IS CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH CURRENT PRICES
OF THE AR
CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF FRID'LEYA WE HAVE PUT
7625 HIGHWAY 65 N. E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 786-6911
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 PAGE 4
,-"W
'I
4
TOGETHER A PROPOSED HOME PACKAGE FOR EACH OF THE LOTS. THE TOTAL PACKAGE WAS
PRICED AT $67,000. BOTH PACKAGES WERE SUBMITTED FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR FINANCE APPROVAL AND APPRAISAL. THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYERS ARE APPROVED FOR V.A. MORTGAGES. THE V.A. APPROVED BOTH HOMES AS THEY
ARE PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE TWO LOTS. HOWEVER, THE APPRAISAL GIVEN TO
THE PACKAGE WAS ONLY $63;000. THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL WAS
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA. THIS DEMONSTRATES AGAIN, THE IMPRACTIBILITY
.OF COMBINING THE TWO LOTS TO BE MARKETED AS A SINGLE LOT FOR A PRICE OF $23,400,
EXCLUSIVE OF ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE.
ATTACHED ARE THREE DIAGRAMS LABLED A,.B, AND C. DIAGRAM A DEPICTS THE SAME
HOUSE PROPOSED'FOR EACH OF THE TWO EXISTING LOTS ON A SINGLE COMBINED LOT. WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SECOND LOT, THIS HOME WOULD NOW COST $72,250. EVEN TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL LAND ENCOMPASSED IN THE PACKAGE, THE APPRAISAL
WULD NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE PURCHASE PRICE, ESPECIALLY AS IT WAS NOTED THAT'
ADJOINING AREA COMPARABLES WAS THE REASON FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL GIVEN TO OUR
PROPOSED PACKAGES. AS INDICATED IN THIS DIAGRAM, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE PROPERTY
WOULD CERTAINLY BE INCREASED, HOWEVER THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT WARRANT SUCH
AN EXTREME PRICE FOR THIS TYPE HOME.
DIAGRAM B SHOWS A T -SHAPED HOME, 28' BY 46' WITH A FORMAL FOYER AND A 24' BY
30' ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SIZE HOME THAT WOULD FIT THE COMBINED SINGLE
LOT. THE COST OF THIS HOME WOULD BE $87,900. AGAIN,'OUT PRICED FOR THE AREA.
FURTHER, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD NOT CHANGE AND THE
DRAINAGE AREA TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOME WOULD INCREASE ONLY BY 2.5'.
DIAGRAM C SHOWS A 24' BY 40' HOME WITH A 20' BY 24t ATTACHED GARAGE SITUATED
IN LINE WITH EXISTING HOMES. Ill THIS INSTANCE, THE DRAINAGE AREAS ON BOTH THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE HOME REMAIN THE SAME. THE PRICE OF THIS HOME WOULD
BE $74,900 ALSO OUT OF THE AREA PRICE RANGE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SHORT SIDE LOTS OF OUR TWO PROPOSED HOMES ARE
BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT CERTIFIED WOULD CONSTRUCT. WE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE MEANS OF -DRAINAGE IN THIS MINIMAL AREA TO INSURE AGAINST ANY DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS.
WE WOULD LIKE*TO POINT OUT THAT THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MINIMUM PROPERTY DIMENSION REQUIREMENT. WE BELEIVE THAT
THIS IS A POINT OFCONSIDEP.ATION. HAD THESE PLATS BEEN RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
MINIMUM STANDARD, WE WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERING OUR CURRENT PROBLEM.
WE FEEL THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS EVIDENCE THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS WOULD ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS
WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THEIR PRESENT STATES AND WE DO NOT FORSEE THAT
THE ADJOINING HOMES WOULD INCUR ANY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
HOMES.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
VERY TULY YOURS,
RNit- ASBORG
YICE•PRESIDENT
APPEA1 S COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE
L
Ms. Schnabel stated that at the last meeting, no action was taken, so
they could have to start at the beginning. She indicated that the
Commi.sioners had received additional information regarding this
reque t in the mail during the week.
Mr. I4dravetz stated that the Staff position had not changed and they
would recommend denial. Staff would be receptive to one..
Mr. Psborg stated that the homes would be built under Excalibur
Homeslnot Certified Homes. An error was made with the letterhead for
the 1etter stating the hardship. He gave the Commissioners a copy of
a sugey indicating the proposed drainage plan. I..r. Keith Graham will
certify the drainage after the project is done. Dlr. Graham, the surveyor,
has been to the site three times and they have gone to great lengths
and expense to do the topos and check the outside areas of the surrounding
homes and they feel the drainage from these two houses will not cause
a problemwith the two adjoining houses. The two adjoining houses are
on small lots and he did not see how the Commissioners could discriminate
against the people who want to buy these two homes and the people who
want to sell these two lots. He has two buyers who want to buy these
two hones. The way they are set up they will be aesthetically nice
homes. They would be 2 -story homes and Mr. Pasborg showed the Commission-
ers pictures of the proposed houses. The pictures indicated how the
houses'I would be layed out.
Mr. Pasborg stated that there would be 10 feet between the two houses
and the prospective buyers did not object to that. He went on to
explain the floor plan which includes suspended decks, a flying eve
on the front which would be 6 feet. 'The decks would be 8 feet protruding
past te flying eve. There would be a patio door in front with a bay
window'on each side. He did not feel it would decrease anything in the
neighborhood.
Ids. Schnabel requested that 17r. Pasborg show his drawings to the people
in t* audience.
Mr. Pasborg did so and went on to explain that the exterior of the
houses would be hand -split shakes on the face and a brick front. The
siding would be cedar with a timberline shake roof. The houses would
be energy homes and there would be shutters on all the windows. He
stated that these are the only homes they feel they can build and that
he haLalre,ady brought one lot. They have not yet paid for the second
lot be ause of the negative reaction he received from the Staff. It
was indicated to him that he would not get the variance and he had
already invested $1,000.00.
Pits. Sc�nabel stated that in the past, based on Staff's experience with
the code, these things have not been generally favored. DTs. Schnabel
statedjthat she was concerned about the elevation and the drainage.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 6
Ms. Schnabel asked if the highest elevation point was 824.9? .
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct and that would be the floor of
the garage and the first floor of the house.
Ms. Schnabel stated that around the lot,.824.9 was the highest elevation
she could find.
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they were dipping towards the house in some way?
Mr. Pasborg stated that they were dipping away from the house. -He
stated that on the survey, PE was the proposed elevations and the
others indicated were the existing elevations. Mr. Pasborg stated
that they were coming up 15 feet and would then drop it down and bring
it around. They had also indicated that they would put in a retaining
wall if necessary, but he did not feel that would be necessary. Mr.
Pasborg went on to explain the drainage and also stated that he would
be willing to sod the neighbors lot which was presently weeds. He
stated it would drop 20 in front from the roof to the street.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she was not convinced because the first floor
elevation was 825.3 and they had a proposed exterior of 824.9. That is
.4 feet of difference and she did not think he could contain it all in
the lot and get it out in that space.
Ii7r. Pasborg stated it would drop to 823.
Ms. Schnabel stated that it would then run into the neighbors lot
which is at 822.
Mr. Pasborg stated that he would be willing to put in a wall or else
fill it and sod it for him.
Ms. Schnabel stated that he would have the same problem in another
area. She did not think that the neighbors fence would stop the heavy
water.
Mr. Pasborg stated that then he would put up two walls.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she thought the Engineering. Department would
want more than that and asked Pir. Moravetz what his opinion was?
Mr. P.Moravetz stated that he didn't believe such a.design had been
requested and was not sure how it would be received. It would have to
'be revi6wed.
Mr. Kemper asked if he would be proposing a cement block wall?
Mr. Pasborg stated that would be the least expensive and least attractive.
PPEALS C01111ISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 1979
Itis. Schnabel stated that it appeared to her that as it looks, she
felt it would be unacceptable in terms of drainage and the people.
in the Engineering Department would have to take a closer look at
it.
Mr. Pa0borg stated that he had asked them about the walls and they
didn't think it would make any difference. He was told that the
percenages of drop were within the regulations and that the only
footag� problem was the difference between the two homes.
Mr. Kemper stated that in looking at it there were definitely some
problems. But that didn't mean he could do some adjustments.
Mr. Pasborg stated that Keith Graham would verify that there would be
proper drainage. He thinks it will work.
Itis. Schnabel stated that from experience,' they have found that if
they aren't diligent and get it on paper to begin with, the work is
not done properly and once it is in, it is tough to go back and change
it. This is not the first problem they have had in that area and she
felt that if this is approved, at some point further along, either at
the Planning Commission or the City Council; he would.have to have some
new proposals for drainage.
Idr. Pasborg asked what would be acceptable?
Ms. Schnabel stated that he would have to talk to the Engineering
Department.
Mr. Pasborg stated that this was what Engineering told him to do.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she didn't believe that because Engineering
would not tell him to drain it onto the neighbor's property and that
is what this would do.
Mr. Kemper stated that if this was passed they would have to take a
look at some of the figures and come up with a different proposal
because the way it is,'water would be running onto the adjacent pro-
perties.
Mr. Pasborg asked if they had the other survey because it was done
twice. He gave them another survey and stated that was the correct
one.
Mr. Plemel asked if a mound of earth sodded about 6 to 10 inches along
the edge accomplish the same as a high concrete wall?
Mr. Barna stated that it would have'to come to a sharp edge at the ..
lot line and, wouldn't bccomplish much. The retaining wall would be a
maximum of 2 courses out of the ground and they could put flagstone
on it or paint it to make it look nice. It would be secured with 1
course below the ground and with 2 courses above it would move with
the frost. Water pressure would not move it.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 PAGE 8
Mr. Moravetz stated that they should consider the relationship of °
the top of the curbing on Riverview Terrace in the northwest corner
of the lots. The top of the curb elevation is 822.4 and it is not
a full curb. It is just a blacktop berm so the actual gutter line
is probably only one tenth of an inch or so lower than the top of
the curb or berm. It was only two to three inches at the most. At
the southwest' corner it is 822.3. The proposed elevation immediately
north of the house is lower than the street elevation.
Ms. Schnabel stated that there were remarks on her copy written by
someone on Staff. One of the remarks is that it is too flat and if
the curb is removed the water will back into the .yard.
Ms. Schnabel stated that there were other things they should look at
but it would suffice.it to say that there is probably drainage problems
and they would have to be worked out. Ms. Schnabel-asked if it was
correct that he had two buyers?
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she understood they had been approved for
mortgages and that they were aware of the distance between the buildings?
Mr. Pasborg stated that the VA was very strict and the buyers had
signed documents regarding that.
Ms. Schnabel stated that another problem was because the dwellings
were so close, they had to be sure that there was no possibility of
the spread of fire. In some cases they require fire walls to prevent
that, and she thought that might include the elimination of windows.
She explained to the petitioner that this was the whole basis of the
requirements to keep the dwelling far enough apart. Also, there was
the consideration of enough room for the fire trucks to get through.
Mr. Pasborg asked what the required distance was?
Mr. Barna stated they should be 20 feet apart.
Mr. Plemel asked if these were factory built houses and if they came
in two sections. Also, he asked who the manufacturer was?
Mr. Pasborg stated that top part of the houses were built in a factory
and that top would come in two sections. The manufacturer was Terrace.
He stated that the lower half of the houses would be constructed on the
site.
Ms. Gabel stated that she was sure a fire wall would be required but
was not sure about the windows.
Ms. Schnabel stated they would have to research that question.
.
APPEALS C011-IISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 19-79- - PAGE 9
Mr. Pa:sborg stated that in his original proposal, the houses were to
be put in the center of.the lot and Mr. Sobiech stated that he should
push them closer together for more drainage. That was why they were
10 feet apart. The original proposal called for a distance of 16 feet.
That would have left less drainage on each side but then they would
have put the cement wall up. The garages would be closest together
on the downstairs floor. They could move the window in the.garage or
eliminate it. He would rather have the houses farther apart and so
would the buyers.
Tvlr. Barna asked what the height was from the peak of the house to
ground level in the front?
Mfr. Pasborg stated it would be 20 feet.
Ms. Schnabel referred to the last paragraph in the Administrative
Staff Report and stated that it was a typing error. It should be
a. "low" area, not a "lot" area.
Mr. Barna stated that would make it about 22.9 feet above the street
level at the center of the lot. That would make it about 4 feet
higher than the house to the south and about 9 feet higher than the
house to the north. AZr. Barna stated that he felt the two houses would
stick up and look funny in that narrow space.
Mr. Pasborg stated that they would not be able to see one of the houses
because of the pine trees which he planned to leave. He pointed out
that it would be about the same height as the house going in across the
street, and the -one further down the street.
Mr. Barna stated that the one two blocks down as caused some problems
because it doesn't really fit in.
14s. Gabel asked what the price would be. She was concerned about
getting some reasonably priced homes in Fridley.
Mr. Pasborg stated that they would be priced betwen .$63.,000 and $67,000.
He stated that there would be 2 bedrooms finished and the downstairs
would be framed in.
Ms. Schnabel asked if these were pre -constructed homes.
Mr. Pasborg stated that the top half was. If they were built on site,
it would cost a lot more and they would not be able to put in' -all the
options they were. He stated this was different from other modular
homes. He also stated that the City of 11inneapolis had accepted them
as a builder.
APPEALS COr117ISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 10 -
Mr. Barna asked what the 1969 flood level was at this point or whiat
the high water elevation was?
Ms. Gabel stated that it was 822.9.
Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. Pasborg had considered single story houses
with unattached garages?
Mr. Pasborg stated that he didn't know how he would get the garages
in there.
Ms. Schnabel stated that would create more of a lot coverage problem.
Mr. Kemper stated that he asked that because of the fire walls.
Mr. Barna stated that he couldn't put in a full basement. He could
put in a basement below the flood plain but would have to protect the
sewer and water and the furnace would have to be hung from the ceiling.
Also, he could not build the basement in such,a. way that it could be
improved into living area in case of a sudden flood someone would be
trapped in there. The houses with full basements were built before the
1969 flood.
Ms. Schnabel noted that the lots on each side were 60 feet not 50 feet.
Xr. Barna stated that the outside lots were not 25 foot but 30 foot.
Ms. Karleen Rice, 696 Hugo Street, came forward and stated that she
had a petition against the construction of two houses.
Ms. Schnabel read the petition as followss To the City of Fridley,
dated July 28, 1979: This is a petition against the building of a
new dwelling at 8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace NE and the request
for variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code to
reduce the minimum lot area from the required 7500 square feet for
lots platted before December 29, 1955, to 5584 square feet, and to
reduce the requirement that there be 20 feet between living areas of
adjacent dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet in width or less
to 10 feet. The petition was signed by -52 people mainly from Hugo
Street, Glenco Street and Riverview Terrace.
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to receive the petition
against the request.
UPON A VOLE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Rice stated that they could not understand how they could put two
houses in that little area. They would not have any air moving back
and forth. I:Is. Rice stated that she lived at'696 Hugo Street and that
she also owned the house at 683 Glencoe Street. They were planning on
renting the, house on Glencoe Street as soon as they fixed it,up.
APPEALS COM1AISSION i:°EETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 11
Mr. Dan St. Clair, 8141.Riverview Terrace, came forward and stated
that his house was located to the north of the lots in question..
He stated that he objected to the construction of these two structures
because he moved to Fridley because he thought it was aesthetically
beautiful. He stated that he had a privacy fence that was put up by
the people who owned the house before hint. It was there because of
the unsightly lot next door. If there was one nice house he would
remove the privacy fence. He was concerned that the two proposed
houses would block the sun. He also would not object to two small.
houses. He did not feel that those two houses would add to the
neighborhood. A single structure would be his preference. -
Ms. Rice stated that she would not object to one house either.
Ms. Schneppmueller, 8151 Riverview Terrace, stated that she was
concerned about the drainage. She felt that with two houses in there.,
they could not handle the water. She stated that when it rains hard,
the water goes all the -way up to her front door. She did not want
another lot draining on her lot.
Dir. St. Clair stated that he agreed with Ms. Schneppmueller and also
that he did not want to see a wall ?o in there. He stated that the
petitioner had mentioned his fence. He stated that his fence would
not and does not hold back the water.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she had the same concern's and it did not
seem that they had adequate land to handle the drainage.
Isis. Julie Birkholz, Route ;4, Isanti, came forward and stated that
she represented the owner of the property at 812,E Riverview Terrace.
She stated that the owner was a 74 year old lady who lived on a farm
in the country and it.would be a'hardship on her if she could not sell
the property. She owns the southerly two lots.
Mr. Kemper asked Irir. Pasborg if those were the two lots that he had
started to buy and held back on.
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
146. Birkholz stated that her grandmother needed the money and would
like to sell.
Ivis. Schneppmuller stated that she took a picture of the other house
that was recently built in the area where the builder was supposed to
take care of the drainage. She stated that the lot he built on drains
into the neighbors.
Mr. Scott Anderson, an associate of Mr. Pasborg, came forward and
asked about the builder who wanted to build a house on pilings in
this area just recently. He asked if they could build a house on
pilings because then there would be no drainage problem.
APPEALS CUIMIS SIGN MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 12
11
Y
PTs. Schnabel stated that was his -intention in terms of the pilings.
He wanted to raise the house up and then skirt it so it would look
like a regular house. He had planned to use the space underneath as
a catch basin. But there were problems with the swale lines and
with the elevations. She stated that there was no problem with the
pilings other than one neighbor was concerned about the pile driving
disturbing his.foun.dation. Apparently there is a method to avoid that.
Ids. Schnabel stated that she felt the problem here was that the
people did not want two houses there because of the crowding and the
drainage problems.
ldr. Pasborg stated that if he built a single house there it would
take up as much room as the two houses. It wauld be a T-shaped house
and it would be big.
Mr. Kemper stated that the Commission was not trying to make it
difficult for 11.1r. Pasborg but was trying to find an amenable solution
for everyone.
PTs. Schnabel stated that there were alternatives. If he wanted to
rethink it or withdraw his request and go with a single dwelling, he
could. She informed Mr. Pasborg that if Council reviewed it and it
was denied, he could do nothing with the property for six months.
Mr. Plemel stated that the final decision rested with the City Council.
The Appeals Commission only advises when.there is neighborhood objection.
Plr. Kemper noted that neighborhood objection carried weight with them
and with Council.
Tis. Schnabel stated that he could request that the item be continued
for two weeks which would give him time to review the situation.
Mr. C. Schack, 685 Glencoe Street, came forward and stated that
lie would object to the retaining wall and did not believe that would
hold the water.
Pls. Schnabel stated that they had the same concerns and they were trying
to protect his property. She informed Mr. Schack that the petitioner
had requested this be tabled for two weeks to give him time to rethink
his request.
Mr. Pasborg stated that he would like it to be continued for two weeks.
He felt that would be fair.
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by ills. Gabel to table the request for
variances pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Firdley City Code, to reduce
the minimum lot area from the required 700 square feet for lots
platted before December 29, 1955, to 558 square feet,' and to reduce the
requirement that there be twenty feet between living.areas of adjacent
dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet or less in width, to 10 feet, to
allos the construction of two dwellings in CPR -2 Zoning (flood plain),
the same being 8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Pis. Gabel requested that in the next two weeks, Staff research the
ouestio7,zs that were raised such as the fire walls and th window
L e dr inane oblem and that Mr. Pasborg check with Sta�f regarRing
the water Drob em.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1,972 PAGE 1'I
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANII:IOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel informed the petitioner and the audience that the public
hearing was still open and invited all interested parties to return in
two weeks.
Ms. Schnabel declared a recess at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 9:35 P.M.
3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CI3APTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, TO R-, DUCE T.KE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 10. rEET
TO SEVETd FEET. TO ALLOW THE CONTaTRUCTION Off', ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA ON
s Skilling, 575 Glencoe
5 GLENCOE STREET K.E. (Request
reet N.E. , Fridley, ITM. 55432) .
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by P:Is. Gabel, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9=35 P.M.
Tris. Schnabel asked the petitioner to come forward and read the
Administrative Staff Report as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
575 Glencoe Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for
living area.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of
20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to
conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing
open areas around residential structures.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"More living space is required. The best way to add living space to the
existing house is to add on the top of the garage which is existing
approximately 7 feet from the west property line."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The house to the west is on the corner lots and faces Broad Avenue. It
has 10 feet (verified) between the structure and the common lot line. If
the variance was approved there would be approximately 17 feet between
living areas.
ri
APPEALS COIUdISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 14 -
to
1
MIs. Schnabel stated that she understood that this was existing.gerage
on the west side of the house and it appeared that the top was removed
and the petitioner wished to build on top of the garage. She asked
what the addition would be?
Mr. Skilling stated that part of it would be to add room on the
kitchen and part of it would be a family room. He showed the
Commissioners a drawing of what he proposed to do and explained
how he planned to do it.
Ms. Gabel asked if the garage could support the structure?
Mr. Skilling stated that it could and that he had checked it out.
If necessary, they would run an extra header.
Ids. Schnabel asked if he would do the work himself or hire someone?
IL'!r. Skilling stated that he would have the work done.
Mr. Kemper asked what the addition would cost?
Mr. Skilling stated it would cost around *14,000.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the exterior would tie in with the existing
exterior and if the roof line would tie in with the existing roof?
Mr. -Skilling stated that it would.
TSIs. Gabel asked about the windows?
Mr. Skilling stated that he would relocate them on that side.
Ms. Schnabel asked if he had talked to his neighbors about the addition?
Mr. Skilling stated that he had and they were in favor of it.
Mr. T.Ioravetz showed the Commissioners an aerial photograph of the
area.
Mr. Kemper stated that they were looking at a 3 foot variance.
Ms. Gabel asked when he would start?
Mr..Skilling stated'they would start as soon as possible and the actual
construction would take about five weeks.
MOTION by TSIs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHIdABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9,50 P.M.
:r
u�.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - AGUSUT 28, 197
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 28, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission
to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Kemper, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gable, Mr. Barna
Members Absent: Mr. Plemel
Others Present: Darrel Clark, Building Inspector
APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 1,_1979:
Mr. Barna noted a correction in the minutes. Page 10, paragraph 7 reads, .
in case of a sudden flood someone would be trapped . . ., it should read, .
in case of a sudden flood someone could be trapped . . .
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gable, that the Appeals Commission minutes of
August 14, 1979, be approved as corrected.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
TNANIMOUSLY .
I• CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE,
TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM THE REQUIRED 7500 SQUARE FEET FOR LOTS PLATTED
BEFORE DECEMBER 29, 1955 TO 5584 SQUARE FEET: AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THERE BE 20 FEET BETWEEN LIVING AREAS OF ADJACENT DWELLINGS ON ANY PARCEL OF LAND
60 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH, TO 10 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS
IN CPR®2 ZONING (FLOOD -PLAIN), THE SAME BEING 8125 AND 8133 RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E.
(Request by Excalibur Homes, Inc., 1267 N.E. 80th Street, Spring Lake Park,
Minnesota 55432).
The petitioner, or anyone representing the petitioner, were not present at the meeting.
Ms. Schnabel reminded the commission and audience that at the August 14, 1979, Appeals
Commission meeting this Public Hearing was tabled until this meeting.
MOTION by Ms. Gable, seconded by Mr. Kemper to remove this item from the table to allow
further discussion on the requests.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLAIRED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark if he could fill the commission and audience in on the
current status of this request.
Mr. Clark said there were 2 items of concern in the minutes. One pertained to fire
walls and the other to drainage. As far as the fire wall is concerned the building
code does not require fire walls if the building is 5 feet or more from the lot line.
The building code is being met by buildix.g the two houses as proposed. However,
Mr. Clark felt there could be some danger in building the 2 story homes so close to-
gether with regards to the possibility of fire spreading from the lower level of
I
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 289 1979 PAGE 2
one home to the upper level of the other home.
Mr. Clark also said that the only drainage plan that he has seen would not work.
He went on to explain that the petitioner had called on Monday asking questions
about building one home on the 4 lots. He was called back on Tuesday by the _
Planning Department to see if he still wanted to be on the Appeal's agenda, and he
said yes. Mr. Clark assumed the petitioner would have been here tonight and he or
the staff had not heard contrary to that..
Ms. Schnabel asked if anyone in the audience was representing the petitioner and,
there was no response.
Mr. Clark said that since this commission is only a recommending body and since the
petitioner is not here, he felt that the commission should take action and he would
recommend denying the petition. Mr. Clark felt that even if the peitioner brought
in new evidence of feasibility to the Planning Commission or Council that the de-
velopment would not work or look right.
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gable to deny the request for variances pursuant
to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum lot area from the re-
quired 7500 s,uare feet for lots platted before December 29, 1955, to 5584 s,,uare feet:
and to reduce the.requirement that there be 20 feet between living areas of adjacent
dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet or less in width, to 10 feet, to allow the
construction of two dwellings in CPR -2 zoning (flood plain), the same being 8125 and
8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Ms. Schnabel asked the audience if they:had anything to d-iscuss or comment
on at this time. Ms. Schnabel explained to the audience tn.at this board was recommen-
ding to Council to deny this request and it is up to the petitioner to decide what he
wants to ao before it gets to Council. If the Council concurs with their decision
then the petitioner cannot present this request before Council for 6 months.
Mr. Clark said he (petitioner) could still build one house on the 4 lots but would still
need a Special Use Permit and that request would come before the Planning Commision at
a later date.
The audience asked when the Planning Commission meeting was. Ms. Schnabel stated it
would be on Wednesday, September 12, 1979, and that they (homeowners) are not given
written notice but it is an open meeting to anyone.
Ms. Schnabel felt that at the September 12th meeting the petitioner would be able to
show them exactly what he intends to do,.meaning the possibility of a single family
dwelling on the 4 lots. The purpose of the Planning Commission meeting is mainly to
decide whether or not he will be able to build in the flood plain area, and not with
the house or houses he proposes to build.
Mr. Chester Schack, 685 Glencoe Street N.E., asked if the peitioner would have to.
build the house on a higher slope® Ms. Schnabel said it would have to be above the
flood plain level. Mr. Schack was concerned that bis house would be lower and have
a drainage problem.
Mr. Clark thought that the Engineering Department would have a drainage plan drawn up
to advise the Planning Commission at the September..12th meeting.
Mr. Schack also asked if Fridley had considered buying the lots to use as a natural
catch basin.
Mr. Clark said he was not aware of any plan.
w APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28 1979 PAGE 3
Mr. Schack said he hated to see someone get stuck with some land they could not use
and this would be a good way to use the lots. He said he would be willing to cut
the weeds on his side of the catch basin and thought the homeowner on the other side
felt the same.
Ms. Schnabel felt that decision should come from the Planning Department or Council
and recommended that he contact his Council representative, Ed Fitzpatrick.
Ms. Schnabel asked for any further comment from the board members.
Mr. Barna said he would have to agree with the motion because he felt he hadn't heard
of any hardships from the petitioner that he had not created himself. He also firmly
felt that the building of 2 homes would create a safety hazard to the public health
and welfare.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel said that this request should go to Planning Commission on September 12th
and to Council on September 24th. Council can set a Public Hearing if they want.
2, RECEIVE MEMORANDUM FROM VIRGIL C. HERRICK, CITY -ATTORNEY, DATED AUGUST 2L 1979,
ISSUE:_ WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE RE UIREMENTS THAT MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH IN GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A VARIANCE, OR A RE -ZONING CHANGE?
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gable to receive the memorandum from Virgil C.
Herrick.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any thoughts or comments on the memorandum.
Ms. Gabel said she had one comment. She had noticed that the courts had done some
kind of a swing around with regards to considering economic feasibility when con-
sidering a_request. Prior to this you could not use economic feasibility as a
determining factor. She also noted that the Appeals Commission according to this.
memorandum could impose stipulations whereas before they questioned if they could
do this or not.
Ms. Schnabel said she had not been able to compare this with the old guidelines yet".
Mr. Kemper asked if this should be considered as some sort of guidelines.
Ms. Schnabel said yes, that in the hopes it would help clarify some issues in the
past and also help in future issues that would be pertinent towards a recommendation.
She went on to say the Planning Commission received it at the end of their last
meeting, but did not discuss it.
Mr. Kemper said he had not had time to really look through'it.
Mr. Barna had read, through it and said he had no comment to make on it at this time.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28 1979 PAGt-°4
ADJOURNMENT: u
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the August 28, 1979,
meeting of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNAGEL DECLARED THE MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
Paula Long,•Aeco Y g Secretary
CITY'�, a� ?a �,.��.: � Fla �� Y, y,:.
...... 5 M....c.,:,.,
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FFIIDLEY, IN.NESOTA 66432
TELEPHONE
�
TO WHOM IT MAY,CONCERN:.
August 23, 1979
This is to notify you that the variances requested by Excalibur Homes
to construct two dwellings on Lots 27 through 29, Block S, Riverview Heights,
to be addressed as 8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E. will again be heard
by the Appeals Commission on Tuesday, August 28, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chamber at the Fridley Civic Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E.
Any and all persons wishing to be heard on this item may appear at the
above time and place.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRWOMEN
APPEALS COMMISSION
To the City of Fridley
Date July 28 1979
This is a Petition against the building of a now dwelling on 8125 and 8133
Fdverview Terrace E.E. And the request for variances pursuant to Chapter
205 of the Fridley Cite Code: to reduce the minixt= lot area from the required 7500
square feet for lots platted before December 29,, 1955, to 5584 square feet., and to
reduce the requirement that there be 20 feet between lining areas of adjacent dwellings
on any parcel of land 60 feet or less in with., to TO feet*
Name
� u�U
AAJ
Address
D.J. AJ
/'-7
6 9b
f 0-1
Ji If
�w
0
00
A
CI'T°Y OF FRI LEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will conduct a public hearing in the -City Council Chambers at 6431 Universi't'y
Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 31, 1979, in regard to the
following:
Request for variances pursuant to Chapter
205 of the Fridley City Code., to reduce the '
minimum lot area from the required 7500 square feet
for lots platted before December 29, 1955, to
5584 square feet, and to reduce the requirement
that there be 20 feet between living areas of
adjacent dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet
or less in width, to 10 feet, to allow the
construction of two new dwellings in CPR -2
Zoning (flood plain) the same being 8125 and
8133 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
VIRGINIA $CHNABEL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEAL$ CQMMI�$,IQN
I
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, August 8, 1979
in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a request for a Special Use
Permit, SP #79-10, by Excalibur Homes, Inc.,
Per Section 205.157, 5, D, of the Fridley
City Code, to allow the construction of two
new dwellings in CPR -2 Zoning (flood Plain)
on Lots 27, 28, 29 and 30, Block S', Riverview
Heights, the same being 8125 and 8137 Riverview
Terrace N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall ,be given an,opportunity
at the above stated time and place.
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: July 25, 1979
August 1, 1979
s•'"
City of Fridley
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
�- ------- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r � PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
t � �
CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
�• -''� ,•� 612-560-3450
SUBJECT
APPL.ICATION TO BOARD
OF APPEALS
NUMBERREV.
910-F23
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE
,1
OF
,2
APPROVED BY
800
Name ddress
Excalibur Homes, Inc. 7625 Hwy. NE, Mpls, Mn. 55432
Phone
786--6U4
Legal
Description
Lot No.
ffia73G2IM90
Block No.
5
Tract or Addn.�
1 Riverview Rights
`
Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property
showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)
205.053 MB - Lot size reduction from 7500 Sq. Ft to 5584 a4_ ft_
l
205.053 (2)B3- Lot width to 50 feet with reduction of condition
B-3
from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Date
Meeting Date Fee Receipt No.
-7— 3) $80.00 9' �y
Signa
-
Comments & Recommendations by
the Board of Appeals
City Council Action and Date
0
City of Fridley
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
�• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
may_------
r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
i r
CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
--- `� 612-560-3450
SUBJtCT
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
(Staff Repprt)
NUMAFRFiEV,
910-F23
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE OF
2 2
APPROVED UV
800
Staff Comments
.-
Board members
date notified,
notified of meeting by List members,
and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan
Date To Attend
Name
Pearson making appeal and the following
feet notified:
® Name
property owners having property within 200
By Whom
d% Date Phone or Mail Notified
MAILING LIST
Request for a special Use Permit
SP #79-10, and variance by Excalibur
Homes, Inc. on Lots 27 through 30
Block S.
Excalibur Homes,
7625 Hwy. 65 N.E.
Mpls, MN. 55432
Planning Commission 7-20-79
Appeals Commission 7-20-79
Inc. Casper V. Dosch
677 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Roger Olson & Connie M. Howe
696 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
John & Karleen Rice
683 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Chester & Margaret Schack
685 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Viola M. Teig
Rout 1
Isanti, MN 55040
Thomas J. Dalton
1420 Silver Lake Rd.
New Brighton, MN 55112
Allan C. Mattson
7950 E. River Rd.
Mpls., MN 55432
Daniel L. & Pamela J. St. Clair
8141 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Gerald A & Jeanine E. Blille
680 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Richard A. & Magdaline E. Burgess
670 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Douglas & Patricia Cloutier
666 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Mary S. Masonick
669 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
George F. & Connie Elliot
695 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Donald & Dorothea Schneppmueller
8151 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Robert M. Lindbloom
8181 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432-
Kim
5432
Kim D & Vicki J. Wall
8065 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Robert B. & Vaughncille G. Johnson
680 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Joel & Kathleen Dumphy
670 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN -55432
P
OF
+4 .
270
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1979
PAGE 9
think the citizens should be put off when they haven't made the effort
to contact anyone to let them know they wouldn't be at the meeting. She
stated just because there weren't many people present to voice their
objections, they shouldn't take this as meaning they were in favor. She
stated it has dragged on and people were getting weary of attending all
the meetings. Mr. Herrick stated, on special use permits, there is some
burden on the Council to show reasons why they should be denied. He
stated excerpts were sent to the Council of a Minnesota Supreme Court
ruling that overturned a Council's decision on the theory that the Council
had not been consistent in the community. He stated he is nervous about
denying a permit where the applicant is not present to state his case,
even though that applicant knew about the meeting. He stated the people
present here this evening, who object to the special use permit, could
be heard and their statements made a part of the record.
Mr.. John Dunphy, 155 Stonybrook Way, stated it was his observation that
Tom Thumb was interested in the property as a special feature, if the
special use permit was allowed. He understood that 40-50% of the revenue
that was taken in would be in gas sales. He mentioned that the location
would have a 25 foot entryway which is close to Stonybrook. He stated
the neighborhood is almost totally opposed to this business at this
location. He felt there was a traffic hazard involved with the vehicles
and children crossing the road, and a question of whether it is a needed
service in the area.
MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table this item to the next meeting.
Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion:carri.ed..unan:imously.
EAST RIVER ROAD COMMITTEE:
Mary Martin, 133 Stoneybrook Way, brought up the possibility of an East
River Road Committee. She stated there used to be such a Committee which
is now defunct and felt such a committee would do a lot of good, if
just keeping the people informed. She didn't feel the action the Council
took regarding East River Road was the only way and -felt there had to be
other. alternatives. Mayor Nee indicated he could see no objections with
such a committee.
RECESS:
A recess was called at 11:05 P.M. by Mayor Nee.
RECONVENED:
Mayor Nee reconvened the meeting at 11:13 P.M. All Councilmembers were
present.
(Planning Commission Minutes Continued)
CONSIDERATION OF VACATION REQUEST, SAV #t79-04 BY ALLAN M JOHNSON �
OF JIM MILLER REAL ESTATE 7751 EAST RIVER ROAD : j
MOTION by Councilman Shcneider to set the public hearing for October 15,
1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1979:
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO REDUCE MINIMUM LOT
AREA AND TO REDUCE REQUIREMENT OF 20 FEET BETWEEN LIVING AREAS ON
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the
Appeals Commission and deny the variances. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimousiy.
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1979
271 ,1
PAGE 10
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of September 12, 1979. Seconded by Councilman
Barnette. Councilman Schneider questioned if a moratorium could be
placed on conversions of condominiums, until the Council decides how
they wish to proceed in this area. Mr. Herrick stated he would do some
research on whether they could adopt a moratorium or an ordinance to
regulate this or set conditions under which it could be done.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayoe Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVING THE CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 1, 1979:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the Charter Commission Minutes
of May 1, 1979. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated a letter was received from Mr. Stahlberg
requesting this extension of his special use permit until the spring of
1980.
Mr. Stahlberg was not present at the meeting and Mr. Qureshi stated he
would recormnend a six months extension and, if Mr. Stahlberg hasn't
proceeded with his plans by this time, would ask him to come back before
the Council.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to allow a six months extension of time
on Special Use Permit SP #78-10 for Allan B. Stahlberg. Seconded by
Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
FOR OCTOBER 15, 1979:
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to set the public hearing for October 15, 1979
on the Comprehensive Development Plan. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF FRIDLEY BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE NORTH MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE:
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated a staff member is attending the Northtown
Corridor Management Task Force meetings and they will keep the Council
informed as to what is happening at the meetings.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to receive the memo from Jerry Boardman to
the City Manager, Mr. Qureshi, dated September 20, 1979 regarding his
attendance at the Northtown Corridor Management Task Force Meetings.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
REAPPLICATION OF REVISED PACO INDUSTRIAL PLAT DUE TO SURVEYOR'S MISTAKE:
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to approve the revised Paco Industrial Plat
due to the surveyor's mistake and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
sign same. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF AN INDEMNITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS REGARDING ADVANCED DRIVERS TRAINING COURSE:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the indemnity
agreement with the City of Minneapolis regarding advanced
drivers training course. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the
motion carried unanimously.
CONTY OF FRIOLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)511-3450
October 3, 1979
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
r.
-Excalibur Homes, Inc.
1267 N.E. 80th Street
Spring Lake Park, -MN 55432
Gentlemen:
On September 24, 1979-( the Fridley City Council
officially denied your request for variances on Lots
with the stipulations 7ste be ow. 27-30, Block.S, Riverview Heights
Please review -the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and
return one copy to the City of Fridley.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call
the Community Development Office at 571-3450.
JLB/de
Stipulations:
Sincerely?
.A*
PLANNER
Concur with action taken.