Loading...
VAR 04.79COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST RETURN TO PLANNING E NO/ ADDREV FILED"TE. DUE DATE ,--..,. COMMENTS �a n City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE l OF 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name Address ' Phone Leg Lot No. De ription B o o. Tract 9117 Addn. Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) ����`"•e'ror "C � °" 9� .'�L° ,Gdt .� � Gi"�'•, f�d�6td�k`t��. &IA4 10 Date V 2e) a Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. Signature Comments & Recommendations byS5 the Board of Appeals /� City Council Action and Date City of Fridley S. AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS r `(Staff • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 suBJEcr APPLICATIONTO BOARD OF APPEALS Report) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments Board members date notified, notified of meeting by and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearin Name List members, Plan Date To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified:By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRI®LEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 May 4, 1979 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, May 15, 1979, in regard to the following: Request for a variance of Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the square footage requirement of a lot recorded before December 29, 1955 from 7500 square feet to 5989 square feet,,to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 8181 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 $CHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEAL,$ CQMP4I$ .-ION Note; The. Appeals C6mmisstQn w.i17 have the final action on this request unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with. the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. CITY OF FRI®LEY 1431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 May 10, 1979 AMENDED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 15, 1979, in following: Request for variances of Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the square footage requirement of a lot recorded before December 29, 1955 from 7500 square feet to 5989 square feet, and to reduce the side.yard setback requirement on the living side of the house from 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 8181 Riverview,Terrace N.E. of Fridley 6431 University regard to the 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 SCHNAREL CHAIRWOMAN APPEAL$ CQMMIIpN Note; The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request. unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not.agree with. the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Coimissioh, MAY 15. 1 IF Ms. Schnabel stated,if they could cut the arch down a little bit they could still keep the common driveway with the car wash. Nix. Shea stated that would be acceptable. Ms. Schnabel asked if that could be done? Mr. Clark stated he was not sure' that would involve the City Engineering Department. MOTION by Mx°. Barna' seconded by Ms. Gabel to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M. W. Plemel stated it was a small lot and it would be nice to see it developed; and it seemed to be a good blend. Also.. one of the best uses. Ms. Gabel stated that she was concerned about the parking and in terms of the options they have certainly made an attempt to do what they could about it. That corner would be developed at some point in time and this way we know that some of it wontt be high volume traffic business. In terms of the parking, the hardship is certainly there. Mr. Barna stated that in looking at the architectural view of the building., he couldn't picture a fast food place there if they ever moved out. About the only thing he could visualize in a building that size would be real estate or offices or a service type with a low volume of traffic. He was not terribly concerned with the number of stalls as much as he was with the size of the parking lot -and also with snow removal. There was not that much of the lot left to du3pp snow on and if they landscape it nice enough they could have a high expense in replanting. He would like to see a wider width to the driveway. Ms. Schnabel stated she.had forgotten to ask about refuse removal. She asked if they would have a refuse disposal or dumpster on site? Yx. Shea stated it would all be internal and they don't have a high volume of truck hauling. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark why the City decided not the put a liquor store on that site-. Yx. Clark stated that would be a higher volume -of traffic and -did not know why. the City decided not to purchase. Ms. Schnabel stated that she could see why they put the building on the site as shown in the drawing and also putting the parking to ,the north of the building. She was concerned about the number of .stalls. They would service the current business., Great_ Expectations. But was concerned about the business that would be in the other half of the building. If that turned out to be a business that would have a high volume of traffic., there could be problems. They could be. creating the situation that could be a problem in the future. . M APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15t 1.979 PAGE 10 Ms. Schnabel stated the history there, with -Target, has been one of traffic problems. She agreed with Mr. Barna that if'that cut could be widened it would be better, if the Engineering Department would go along with it. MOTION by.Mr. Plemel, seconded by Ms. Gabel to recommend to Council approval of the request for variances to Chapter 205 Of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required 80 foot setback from any right of way.line to 35 feet along 53rd Avenue N.E., and reduce the parking requirement from 30 to 25 parking stalls., to allow the constructionof a commercial building at 765 53rd Avenue'N.Eo UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend that the petitioner woith the Engineering Department to change the.driveway to facilitate public safety and consider signing the first two stalls for employees only or compact cars only. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCMWEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed the petitioner that this would go to Council and suggested they talk to the Engineering Department before it goes to Council. 3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF CHAPTER 20 OF A i FRIDLEY CITY CODE. TO s, Mn379) . MOTION by Mr. Plemel' seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHWEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:50 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8181 Riverview Terrace A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053 (13) On a plat recorded before December -29,.1955, the,.. Minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to.avoid the condition of overcrowding 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, 4, (6,1) requiring a 10 foot side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone. A JPPEALS COMMISSION MUTING, 'MAY a.5, 1979 , _ �, AGE 11 Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garage and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None given. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Riverview Heights was platted many years ago in 25 foot lots. Over the the years past, many homes have.been built by combing' two 25 foot lots to attain one 50 foot site. There are several homes in this same block that have been built on lots of this size. This lot is located in the flood plain, therefore, the structure must be elevated to a certain level, and in some instances it has been difficult, to grade the property to meet flood plain requirements. This proposed structure is going to be post and beam construction, therefore, the grade can be left pretty much the way that it is. The staff has no recommendation on the area variance request, if the Commission approves it. With reference to the' -side yard variance. If -the Commission recommends approval of it we would not have recommended stipulation since even with the reduced side yard, it would still meet the Building Code of 6 feet between structures. There is however, additional hazard of spread of fire due to the reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet between living area and garage. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Commissioners had received a survey of the property and also a picture of the lot in question. They also had.a map of the area. Mr. Clark stated. that the house plan was presented with a post and beam type foundation allowing for water to stand beneath the structure should the river come up. The top of the floor inside would be approximately 3 to 4 feet above the existing ground. Mr. Plemel asked if there would be a basement or crawl space? Mri Clark stated that as he understands it would be open underneath by about 12 feet. There would be,l2 feet below the floor joists' to the ground. Mr. Clark stated that this item would also be heard by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1979, because it is in the flood plain. At that time they will consider the structure and elevations. The Appeals Board is only required to act on the two variances, one to reduce the square footage requirement from 7500 square feet to 5989 square feet and the other to reduce the side yard to'the south of the house from the required 10 feet to 5 feet. He stated that the house could be turned 90 degrees so the shorter side would be towards the street and that would increase the side yard to 9 feet. APPEAT S COMMISSION MEETIIVj. MAY 1 1 7 - PAGE 12 W. Perrozzi stated that regarding the newer foundation, the City of Minneapolis has built several of these structures in the Lake Calhoun area where they have a problem with poor footings and poor soil and it meets all their engineering require- ments as far as steel beam construction goes. The steel eye beam would be more solid than conventional concrete or cement foundations. He stated there would be skirting around the outside so it wouldn't be open. The skirting will keep small animals and children from getting under the house. There will be a culvert coming up for::.the sewer and water near the rear of the house. Mr. Plemel asked if he was planning to own and occupy this himself? Mr. Perrozzi stated that he planned to. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Perrozzi to explain the type of beams he was talking about - Mr. Barna stated it would be like the house on Matterhorn Drive construction..wise. The look of the house was different from this but the construction was basically the same. Mr. Perrozzi stated it would be a number of telephone poles that would be power, driven into the ground and the steel eye beam would rest across those poles. Ms. Gabel asked what the skirt would be made of? Mr. Perrozzi stated the skirt would be wood with a screen mesh like.a lattice work would be. It would look -like a conventional house. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Perrozzi if he would be doing the actual construction work himself? Mr. Perrozzi stated he would have it done but he would be the general contractor. Ms. Schnabel asked how soon he planned to begin construction? Mr.` :Perrozzi stated he planned to begin within a month and have it completed this summer. Ms. Schnabel asked if he proposed to put a garage on the rear of the property? Mr. Perrozzi stated that was correct. Ms. Schnabel asked if the plan the Commissioners had was done by a surveyor? Mr. Clark stated that was a reduction of a plan done by a surveyor. Ms. Schnabel stated she had noticed all the swales noted.on the plan and asked if there was a specific reason for that, Mr. Clark stated that if the grading was done according to this plan, theoretically, no water will run from this lot onto an adjoining lot. The lot would drain within itself out onto the street. The darkened arrows.are the center lines of where the flows of water will supposedly take place. There will be water flowing along the south side of the house and also along the driveway on the north side of the house. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY _151 1979 - PAGE 13 Ms. Schnabel asked how they could be sure it would be done in that manner? Mr. Clark stated that the grading would be checked by the Engineering Department before it is approved. , Mr. Plemel stated this looked like extra precautions that we don't normally see and asked if there. -was a problem. Mr. Clark stated they didn't want this property built up so the water runs on the neighbors property and causes water problems for them.. Mr® Plemel asked if there would be some fill added to this lot? Mr. Clark stated there would not be a lot of fill added because the house is being built above the ground. The driveway would probably need a little bit. Mr. Barna stated that elevations shown on the plan are pretty much what they currently are. Mr. Clark stated that the ones not circled are existing elevations and the ones circled are the proposed elevations. Ms. Schnabel stated that the ones circled are proposed elevations and,if they are not in fact existing now, that means they will either :-have to be graded or there would have to be fill brought in. Mr. Clark stated that the worth east corner shows an existing elevation of 823.7 and the proposed would be 823.6 so there would be basically no change there. [where the house would sit the grade of the elevation is roughly at 824.1 and the driveway elevation is at 824., which is about the same elevation as the house to the north. To the south the existing garage is at about 822 and the swale on the proposed drawing is at 822 so there would not be a great change,. He stated that the lot itself would not be built up with the exception of the driveway. On the 'Staff Report for the Special Use Permit it states that the ground underneath the house should be at 823 and if you look at the swale along the south property line it's less than 823 and the swale does drain towards the -street so water will not have to stand on the lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that then from midway on the lot to the street it would go from 823 to 822., a difference of about one foot$ pitched towards the street on the south side. On the north side_it would.go from midway at 824 to 822 so there would be a two foot difference to the street. Ms. Schnabel referred to the Staff Review and stated they were speaking of the, garage on the south side of the; proposed structure. She asked how far that garage is off the property line? Mr. Clark stated it was approximately 4j feet. APPEALS COMMMSSION MEETING MAX 15, M9 - PAGE 14 Ms. Schnabel stated that the proposal for the new structure on thesouth side is to put it at 5 feet so there would be'92 feet between the two. She stated that the code required 15. Mr. Clark stated that because this is a detached garage, it could be as close as 3 feet. Ms. Schnabel stated that was a point and if it were garage -to garage it could be 6 feet between the two So since this is a detached garage it could be 3 feet but the house would have to be 10 feet. So the basic'question they have to deal with is the request to have the house closer to the lot line than the code allows. Also, he was suggesting that if the house were turned so that the 30 foot ran north/south, they could pick up an additional 4 feet. Mr. Barna asked the petitioner how flexible the floor plan was? Mr. Perrozzi stated that if they turn the house it would destroy the amenities such as the view of the river, etc. They situated it this way so everything they wanted in the house could be accomodated. Ms. Schnabel stated that the other question was the lot size. They would like to reduce it from 7500 square feet to 5989 square feet. Basically the difference comes in the lot width rather than the lot length because the lot length is as long or longer than most lots in the City. She asked that the people in the audience keep in mind that they were dealing with those two questions, the lot size and the side yard setback. Mr. R. H. Klingbeil,-8199 River View Terrace, came''forward and stated,he lives on the north side of the property in question. Mr. Klingbeil-was concerned about the pile driving and' that it would harm his foundation. Mr. Perrozzi stated that when they do the pile driving, they would set a meter in Mr. Klingbeil's house that would measure the vibrations and they would keep them at a certain level so his foundation would not be harmed. Mr. Clark stated that the house on Matterhorn is on posts also and they were not power driven. They dug and put down concrete pads and set the poles on the pads. Mr. Klingbeil reiterated that power driving those pilings would harm his foundation. He stated that his other concern was that when they put in this street, they raised the road and his front lawn tapers that way and he,would have to fill there or it will drain on his property. Mr. Clark stated that in the middle of the yard it was at 821 which indicated that his yard was higher by the house and dips down and back up at the street. Mr. Klingbeil's water probably drains onto this vacant lot. When this vacant lot is filled it will not do that anymore. Ms. Schnabel stated Mr. Klingbeil could be faced with a little regrading on his own lot. �fl APPEALS COMMISSION�, ING MAY 152 1979 - PAGE 1 Mr. Schackp 685 Glencoe St. N.E., came forward and asked how far the garage. would be from the adjacent property line and the adjacent house? Mr. Clark stated it would be closer to his garage. Mr. -Schack stated that when he built six years ago,certain limitations were put on him regarding setback and concrete blocks and he was upset that Y°. Perrozzi would not have the same limitations. Ms. Schnabel stated that the code may have been different then. Mr. Don Schneppmueller stated that lie lived at 8151 River View Terrace which is south of the property in question. His feeling was that the entire area was being overpopulated. He stated that he had problems with his sewer backing up and if they put more homes in there it would be worse yet. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Schneppmueller if he had problems with his sewer during this last high water? 6 Mr. Schneppmueller stated he didn't have any problems this last time, but a year ago he did. He stated he does get odors downtherea lot. If they put this house here and they are planning to put two more on the other side.of Hugo, so it's.going to get worse. Mrs. Schneppmueller stated that when they wash their car or when it rains, the water runs into that lot and she was concerned about where that water would go if they built a house there. Ms. Schnabel stated that Mrs. Schneppmueller's house was at 823.7 and the highest point shown that they are proposing is at 823.7 which is the same as their house' but that is at the very rear of the lot. All along the lot line they are showing an elevation that is lower than Mrs. Schneppmueller's house. Mr. Perrozzi stated that the runoff .in his lot goes to the street. Mr. Barna stated that the normal runoff in•that area is not normal, it is very high and standing water in that area is very high. Mr. Schneppmueller stated that everything comes from the East River Road and there was no sewer from a block up so it comes right down to River View Terrace. Mr. Klingbeil stated that they took the surveys in the winter and he believed they missed a little bit. Mr. Clark stated°the. survey was taken'on February 21,E 1979. Mr.. Perrozzi stated that this meeting was concerned with the variances and the Special Use.Permit should be discussed at a later time. Ms Schnabel stated that since these people were here they ,should be able to comment. APPEALS COMffSSloN MEETsNG; MAY 15 1979 _ PAGE 16 ...�.... �. �. .R.. .... Mr. Barna stated that Mr. Schack's concern was that he had two vacant lots behind his house and what is allowed here will bear on what is allowed behind him and after the experience on Fairmont the people were concerned. The house -on Fairmont is,a nice house but it just doesn't fit. M. Schnabel pointed out the this discussion was more germain to the Special Use Permit which will be handled by the Planning Commission. The Board of Appeals was concerned with the variances. 9 Ms. Gabel stated that if they were objecting to the design of the house, nobody had any control over that. Mr. Klingbeil asked if this had to go*to the government because it is in the flood plain. Mr. Clark stated that was correct and it has already -been reviewed by them. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Schneppmueller how far his garage was from the lot line? Mr. Schneppmueller stated it was 4 feet. Mrs. Schneppmueller asked if they would have to move their fence onto their property if that house is built there and how close to the property line does it have to be. Ms. Schnabel stated they generally recommend that the fence be within their property so they can maintain both sides of the fence. Mr. Clark stated if they put it right on the property line it causes problems for surveyors, but the code does not demand that it be setback from the property line. Ms. Gabel asked about the sewer and water. Mr. Clark stated that he was not sure. He stated that during the flood there was a lot of problems. There used to be a lot of infiltration of ground water into the sewers. Personally, he was not aware of any back-ups with the exception of a few isolated cases in the last few years. These reports go through the Public Works Department and they had no comments regarding this particular item. He stated that the sewer drops at Hugo and goes from 8 to 10 inches, and below Hugo it is probably 10 inches. Above.Hugo it is all 8 inches. There is clay tile there. Mr. John Rice, 696 Hugo Street N.E., asked how high the house would be. Mr. Perrozzi stated it would be a story and a half. Mr. Clark stated that the ist floor would be higher than' the houses around it by about one foot. Mr. Perrozzi stated that if they put drain tile along the.swale lines and run it into the river, it would take care of the drainage problems. Ms. Schnabel.stated that she didn't think they would be able to do that. 14 APPAGE 1 PEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY_122i 1 9 Mr. Klingbeil stated that he was told they wouldn`t put more than two houses in one block because it would be too crowded. He stated that by putting so many houses in it would become a slum area. Ms. Schnabel asked if he had ever been approached to buy one of these 25 foot, lots? Mr. Klingbeil stated that he could of bought it but did not want to. Ms. Schnabel stated that her point was that when they have a 50 foot lot like this it is going to be built on. The alternative is for the people adjacent to the property purchase it. Mr. Dan St. Clair, 8141 River View Terrace, stated that he.has lived here for about one year. One of the reasons he moved into this area was because of the nice houses and location. He moved here so.he wouldn't be so close to his_ neighbors and have over -crowding. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Sneppmueller how he waald feel about having a house about 9 feet away from his garage? Mr. Sneppmueller stated he wouldn't like it. Mrs..Sneppmueller stated they have a swimming pool in their back yard and are in it quite late at night sometimes. There could be a lot of noise. Ms. Gabel stated that when someone owns a piece of property, they have the right to develop it. Mr. Bob Lindgren stated that he had an interest in the property. He felt it was a good piece of land and felt that the people here looked at it as a dump for all their water. Mr. Perrozzi would like to build a house on it and live there. He has a right to develop his property. Ms. Schnabel stated that another point they should make with this particular request is that the size of the lot they are faced with is a given fact and there wasn't much they could do. There was no land available to expand the size of the lot There is a hardship in the width of the lot but plans could be developed that would require no variances. Other houses have been built on 50 foot lots without variances.she thought. Mr. Clark stated they could build a.home on this size lot that would not require any side yard variances. Mr. Barna stated.;he could'see no reason for designing the house 5 feet from the lot -line. Ms. Schnabel stated that their concern in setting houses close to each other was the spread of fire and their other concern was to have enough room to get fire fighting equipment through if necessary. The Fire Chief has said they need a< certain amount of space for that. APPEALS COMMISSION NEETINGi MAY.122 1979. - PAGE 18o Mr. Clark stated it would depend -on the height of the building and they wanted enough room to raise a ladder. Mr. Barna stated there were 960 square foot houses all over that area on 50 foot lots without side yard variances. According to his calculations' there are only 940 square feet on the first floor of the proposed house. Ms. Schnabel stated they had the option of the petitioner considering reworking his plan so they wouldn't need a side yard variance 1 Mr. Perrozzi stated that if he couldn't build the house the way he wanted it, he probably would not live in the house. Mr. Barna stated that 22 feet of this lot is actually in the street. There is a zero boulevard. That is not really a street., it is a dyke. He didn't see a dimension from the front of the house to the curb line. Mr. Clark stated there would be 32 feet from the front of the house to the bituminous, surface. MOTION by Ms. Gabel., seconded by Mir. Barna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCENABEL DECLARED TEE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:05 P.M. Ms. Schnabel stated that she would to remind the Commissioners that the two questions they have been asked is to consider the reduction of the square footage of the lot and the side yard setback. In terms of the side yard setback' we have asked the petitioner if he would be willing to turn the house in order to gain an additional 4 feet and he has said that he felt that would hinder his sight in terms of the lot and would create some difficulties in terms of entrance to the house. The second point was if he would consider reworking this floor plan and he indicated that he would not be in favor of that because this was the house that he wished to build for himself and his family and if.he had to redraw he would probably be faced with putting up a totally different structure in which case he probably wouldn't live there. In terms of the lot size., they were faced with a lot that was platted and sold as a 50 foot wide lot and was substandard or less than code. It is a land locked piece of land and there is no additional land available to enlarge it. This summarizes the two points we have to deal with. Ms. Gabel stated that in terms of the two variances' the 7500 foot reduction is not unusual in that area. There are a large number of homes built on 50 foot lots in that area and we rather consistently grant variances in that area to allow building on 50 foot lots. As far as the side yard variance goes, it would still meet the intent of the building code in terms of keeping.6 feet between the structures. She understood the objections of these people and that there were used.to the open space.and using this lot to drain their water and if it is built on they will have to find a way to drain their own water. She felt that if.someone buys a piece of property they have a right to develop it. She wished she knew more about the a sewer problem. 'APPEALS COMMISSION MELTIntG MAY15,1.1212- PAGE 1 Mr. Barna stated that basically they were talking about an 822 foot level drop dawn to where the sewer pipe is. The river right now is at about 810 feet. It was up about 816 feet in the last three weeks. Normally when the river .comes up the people in this area have quite.a. bit of problems.with ground water backing up into the sewer pipes and causing back pressure up in their basements. Most of them have installed pressure locks and this type of thing. There are quite a few homes in that area that consistently have sewer back up problems. This ground sits about 20 or 30 feet below East River Road which creates the additional problem of pumping that sewage up to that level and then out: They have quite a bit of sewer problems. The pumping station is at Apex and 79th. Ms. Schnabel stated she would be more comfortable if the Engineering Department had given them more input regarding this and maybe that should be done before the Planning Commission meets. Mr. Clark stated that from their standpoint, the addition of one or two or even ten houses into this system is not going to make any difference in the back up problems that some of these people are experiencing. What they are experiencing is high ground water and that water infiltrating into the sewer which is a much, higher volume than the discharge from eight or ten houses. Mr. Barna stated that he has consistenly voted in favor of allowing building on 50 foot lots in this area. But there are no houses on 50 foot lots on River View Terrace facing the river. This would be the first. Also, he stated it was possible to put a large, nice looking home on a 50 foot lot without side yard variances and without building within 9 feet of a neighbor's garage. He would consider that this house width in this area and on a 50 foot lot, much too wide in his opinion. Mr. Plemel stated that he was not sure the City would deny the variance to build on a 50 foot.lot or 1f it would stand up in court because the precedent has been set many times over in the River View Heights area.; Because of the neighborhood objection and because there was no hardship given he would recommend they disallow the variance on the side yard. MOTION by Mr. Plemel,, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to Council approval of th request for the variance to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Codep to reduce the square footage requirement of a lot recorded before December 29: 1955 from 7500 square feet to 5989 square feet, and further to recommend to Council the request to reduce the side yard setback requirement on the living.side of the house from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 8181 RiverView Terrace N.E. be denied. Ms. Schnabel stated the motion was to recommend approval of the lot size reduction and recommend denial of the request for a side yard setback. She called for further discussion. Ms. Gabel stated she was not quite clear on why they should deny the variance for the side yard setback. APPEALS CONMISSION MEETING, MAY `1 197,9, PAGE 20 � h Mr..Plemel stated that in order to grant a variance a hardship should be stated. Ms. Gabel stated that whoever' accepts these aware ey n eed to have a hardship sta alications should make the W. Plemel stated that his second 'reason was because of the neighborhood objection to the close proximity to the buildings to the south. Ms. Schnabel stated they should ask the petitioner what his specific hardship is? t Mx. Perrozzi stated that it was to utilize the lot to it's best potential. Putting in a smaller home would add to the degeneration of the neighborhood. He could build a smaller home but he would not want to live in it. Ms. Gabel stated that she didn't totally agree with Mr. Plemel's motion. She agrees with reducing the square footage but not with denying the side yard setback. We have done that consistently. Mr. Plemel stated that he felt a compromise would be in order because of the neighborhood objection. Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Klingbeil had stated that he did not see any real problem with a house going in and that he did not have any real problem in terms of the side yard setbacks. His biggest concern was damage to his foundation from ' the power driven piles. The neighbor on the south side was apparently concerned with it being 5 feet off the property line. The problem is to find a happy median. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. PLUM. MS. GABEL AND MR. BARNA VOTING AYE' AND MS. SCHNABEL VOTING NAY., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 3 to 1. Ms. Schnabel informed the petitioner that the minutes of this meeting would go to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission will send their recommendation on the Special Use Permit along with the recommendation from this Board to the City Council. City Council will make the final decision. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: W. Barna stated that when the meetings are held in the Community Room there is difficulty in maintaining control and recommends that the Court Room be used for future meetings of the Board of Appeals. MOTION by Ms. Gabel., seconded by Mr. Barna.. to adjourn the May 15, 1979 meeting of the Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. RespectfullySubmitted: Kathy Shelton., Recordirg Secretary Item #2 May 15, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8181 Riverview Terrace A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053 (1B) On a, plat recorded before December 29, 1955, the ,minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of overcrowding 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, 4, (B,1) requiring a 10 foot side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garage and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None given. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Riverview Heights was platted many years ago in 25 foot lots. Over the the years past, many homes have.been built by combing two 25 foot lots to attain one 50 foot site. There are several homes in this same block that have been built on lots of this size. This lot is located in the flood plain, therefore, the structure must be elevated to a certain level, and in some instances it has been difficult to grade the property to meet flood plain requirements. This proposed structure is going to be post and beam construction, therefore, the grade can be left pretty much the way that it is. The staff has no recommendation on the area variance request. if the Commission approves it. With reference to the side yard variance. If the Commission recommends approval of it we would not have recommended stipulation since even with the reduced side yard, it would still meet the Building Code of 6 feet between structures. There is however, additional hazard of spread of fire due to the reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet between living area and garage. A e -A s 176 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 4 Council oman Moses stated she personally felt this is a trend that is appening now and would like to pass this item, rather than table it. Mr. Her ick stated that some communities have cluster developmen -and felt perhaps his might be quite similar where units are very close gether and there is lot of open space that is commonly owned by the en re group. Councilman Schneider felt there were several issues that is particular plat doesn't rai e. He indicated he was concerned with the g eral maintenance and also that po sibly a developer may find some way of us' g this to totally undo some areas by not following the intent of the Zoning ode. Councilwoman Mos suggested looking at this conc t in terms of existing structures and at ew construction in another li t. Mayor Nee stated he uld feel much better i this was in the Zoning Code as he has a problem of ow to rationalize variance, as far as hardship, since it is now an exist g use. Mr. Herrick felt that if the ouncil s any inclinations to authorize this type of conversion, they could ep e a procedure to allow it, however, if they felt it was something they ' n't want, there wouldn't be any reason for spending time in establishing a ro dure. MOTION by Councilman Barnet to table t ` item indefinitely for further infor- mation and refer this conc t to the Planni Commission for their processing and policy recommendatio pertaining to the co ersion concept. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. pon a voice vote, all vo g aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion.carried u nimously. NEW BUSINESS: RECEIVING THE LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1979: REZON Q REQUEST, ZOA #79-02, BY WILLIAM J. HART 6431HIGHWA 65): MOTION y Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this rezonin reque for July 16, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voi vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #79-04, BY JOSEPH PERROZZI (8181 RIVERVIEW TERRACE): "Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated a special use permit is required due to the flood plain zoning of the property and, in conjunction with the special use permit, variances are requested for waiver of the setbacks. Mr. Sobiech stated the entire lot is not in the flood plain, but only the area along the front of the property. He stated, in this particular case, they would bee raising the first floor with pilings and then raising the lot to insure no impact or minimal impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit at their May 23 meeting. 'Mr. Sobiech stated he was confident that this drainage plan, as set up, will handle the drainage. He stated there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting,about the amount of slope on the swale section, but he felt it was adequate. Mr. Sobiech stated the petitioner did propose a certain dimension house for the property, however, it was recommended that the house be redesigned to eliminate the need for the side yard variance, which was denied by the Appeals Commission. He stated the Appeals Commission did, however, approve a variance for reduction in the area of the lot. Mr. Sobiech felt this was a very good plan as compared with others in the area. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated as far -as the drainage, the standard rule in Minnesota is that an owner may, develop his property in a reasonable fashion, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily burden the neighbor. He stated it is a i very general rule and depends on a situation -by -situation application. w 175 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 3 Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated, aside from the policy of whether or not the Council wishes to have additional rental units or not, the City Code states, in order to have a double bungalow, the lots must be a certain size. He pointed out there would be exactly that much space on the lot whether you have one family owning and one renting or both of them owning their unit. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he agreed it doesn't change the density, but only one person was responsible for the building. He questioned why, if it wasn't necessary, it was provided for in the first place. Mr. Herrick felt it was done in order to provide a variety of housing and that it is cheaper to construct a double bungalow on one lot then two 'single family houses on two lots. He felt the concept of conversions with dual owner- ships is a rather new one and was not thought about when the Zoning Code was adopted. Councilman Schneider felt this concept might be a way for someone to obtain two building sites for sale out of what would normally be a single site, thereby circumventing the ordinance. Mayor Nee felt the entire question had to be reviewed whether or not they wanted "0" lot lines. Mr. Herrick felt the Council should determine if .they want to allow existing units of this type to convert from rental to ownership and also if they want to permit this concept for new construction. He pointed out, if this was to be allowed, the mechanics of it could be done under the code, as it stands now, or with some simple modifications. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he was not prepared to allow building on 30 foot lots. Mr. Qureshi stated it is a question on whether the Council wishes to permit more rental units or more private ownership. .l Mayor Nee questioned whether one person or several would be responsible for the structure. Mr. Sobiech stated there would be a developmental agreement which would indicate that the by-laws would be reviewed and that would be enforceable because it is an agreement between the City and developer. Mr. Herrick stated a development agreement would be enforceable, but probably only until the development is complete, then it is up to the individual property owners to operate it, unless it violates some of the City's other codes. Councilman Barnette pointed out that these units only have one water meter and if one person doesn't pay their bill, how is this handled. Mr. Sobiech stated it would be covered in the by-laws. Mr. Herrick stated a lien could also be placed against all the property, if it is a service that is being used by all. Councilwoman Moses stated they have this concept in Brooklyn Park and the residents pay an additional sum, in addition to their rent, to cover the costs for utilities. Mayor Nee questioned, under this concept, if convenants could be put in, such asa co-op. Mr. Herrick felt this might be a possibility. Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing the Zoning Code and the Metropolitan Council will be studying this concept in the next several months. , REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 5 177 Mr. _Herrick questioned if there was a storm sewer in this area and if construction of this house would prevent water from getting to the storm system. Mr. Sobiech stated from the grade indicated, he would answer in the negative. Mr. Herrick felt the property owner would have a pretty strong argument that the City can't use his property as a drainage basin. He stated he would suspect he could build on the property, providing he meets the other criteria. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated Mr. Sobiech has stated there really isn't a problem, but it seems to him if this had been developed by raising the fill two feet, it would shut off the drainage from the northeast. Mr. Herrick stated he doesn't have nearly as much trouble with the concept of saying he can build, but has to insure drainage, as with the problem of saying he cannot build on this lot because it has to be used for drainage. If you do this you are saying it is unreasonable or reverse condemnation where the City is really taking the lot for public purpose. Mr. Sobiech felt the concern of the Planning Commission should be reinforced regarding the drainage to insure no or minimal impact on the neighbors. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant special use permit, SP #79-04, with the stipulation that the City be satisified that the drainage pian, as described and discussed, would be maintained in construction. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #79-05. BY JAMES LARSON (6740 - AtH Mr, obiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a ecial use pe, 1 .to allow a second accessory building for use as a garage a d storage of aut obiles. He stated he Planning Commission held /hean ing and as recommended ap roval. Mr: Sobiech sta ed the petitioner is unecause of a recent motor- cycle accident.MOTION by Councilman Barnette to grant ermit, SP #79-05. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice voaye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unan'mously. REZONING RE UEST, ZO 79-04, BY G5701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE): MOTION by Councilman Fitzpat 'ck to et the public hearing on this rezoning request for July 16, 1979. Se and d by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee decla the motion carried unanimously. VACATION REQUEST. SAV #7 -02. CITY OF FRIDLEY (UNIVERSITY SERVICE ROAD): MOTION by CouncilwomanMos s to set tke hearing on this vacation request for July 16, 1979. Seco ted by Counci man Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee clared the motibp carried unanimously. IVERVIEW TERRACE): Mr. Sobiech, Pu is Works Director, stated t\variancfor for variances, in conjunctio with the special use permits.n of a single family dwell ng in the flood plain. Mr. Sobie stated the Appeals Commission hanial of the side yard se ack and recommended approval of theduction in the area o . the lot. s w E REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 5 177 Mr. _Herrick questioned if there was a storm sewer in this area and if construction of this house would prevent water from getting to the storm system. Mr. Sobiech stated from the grade indicated, he would answer in the negative. Mr. Herrick felt the property owner would have a pretty strong argument that the City can't use his property as a drainage basin. He stated he would suspect he could build on the property, providing he meets the other criteria. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated Mr. Sobiech has stated there really isn't a problem, but it seems to him if this had been developed by raising the fill two feet, it would shut off the drainage from the northeast. Mr. Herrick stated he doesn't have nearly as much trouble with the concept of saying he can build, but has to insure drainage, as with the problem of saying he cannot build on this lot because it has to be used for drainage. If you do this you are saying it is unreasonable or reverse condemnation where the City is really taking the lot for public purpose. Mr. Sobiech felt the concern of the Planning Commission should be reinforced regarding the drainage to insure no or minimal impact on the neighbors. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant special use permit, SP #79-04, with the stipulation that the City be satisified that the drainage pian, as described and discussed, would be maintained in construction. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #79-05. BY JAMES LARSON (6740 - AtH Mr, obiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a ecial use pe, 1 .to allow a second accessory building for use as a garage a d storage of aut obiles. He stated he Planning Commission held /hean ing and as recommended ap roval. Mr: Sobiech sta ed the petitioner is unecause of a recent motor- cycle accident.MOTION by Councilman Barnette to grant ermit, SP #79-05. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice voaye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unan'mously. REZONING RE UEST, ZO 79-04, BY G5701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE): MOTION by Councilman Fitzpat 'ck to et the public hearing on this rezoning request for July 16, 1979. Se and d by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee decla the motion carried unanimously. VACATION REQUEST. SAV #7 -02. CITY OF FRIDLEY (UNIVERSITY SERVICE ROAD): MOTION by CouncilwomanMos s to set tke hearing on this vacation request for July 16, 1979. Seco ted by Counci man Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee clared the motibp carried unanimously. IVERVIEW TERRACE): Mr. Sobiech, Pu is Works Director, stated t\variancfor for variances, in conjunctio with the special use permits.n of a single family dwell ng in the flood plain. Mr. Sobie stated the Appeals Commission hanial of the side yard se ack and recommended approval of theduction in the area o . the lot. 178 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 6 , Mr. Perrozzi stated the Appeals Commission had made a recommendation to turn e.house sideways and if this was done, you would not have a view of the river. M . Perrozzi stated he felt the requirement for the ten foot setback was ex essive, as other communities only require five feet. He felt, if he couldn't obt in a variance for the side yard setvack, the house wouldn't really serve his amily's needs. Mr. Perrozzi Pointed out that the other houses in the area are n t in compliance with the setback requirement. ) Councilan Fitzpatrick felt, if the structure gets too close to the adjacent property it becomes a fire problem and other problems foreseen by adoption of the or inance in the first place. He stated, however, he hate to tell Mr. Perrozzi h can have a house only 29 feet frontage when he wants 34 feet. I Mr. Sobiech tated this., again, is the situation that the vari ce should be based on hard ip. He stated the hardship here would be that r. Perrozzi_ would have a s aller home. Councilman Fitzp trick stated he can understand the hardsh , but granting the variance becomes public problem. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the rec endation of the Appeals Commission to grant the variance for reduction f the lot area, but to deny the variance on t e side yard setback. Seconded y Councilman Schneider. Mr. Perrozzi stated theoblem with the side yard tback was to make adequate facilities for the Fir:truc D artment, but all that w required was nine feet and even with the varianceof a side yard setback t five feet, there would still be nine feet between his t re and the neighbor' garage. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt th a was a reason by there is' -a. different setback required when it is a garage to ouse arrange nt, as it is assumed the fire aspect.is increased at that poin He state he could see the reason for making the request, but felt a num er of a1 wances have been made on this property and his motion would be to concur ith the Appeals Commission. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, pointed out t at staff would check the disputed variations they have on the map. Councilman Barnette asked Mr. Perrozz' if he variance for the side yard set- back is denied, if he would still bu ld on his lot. Mr. Perrozzi stated he would have to meet with an archi ect to d ign a house to meet.the setback requirements and couldn't make th decision til he confers with an architect. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE TION, all vote aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpat ick to receive"the min tes'of.the Planning Commission Meeting of May 23,-1979. S conded by Councilman Sch ider. Upon a voice vote, a;Yl.voting aye, Mayor Nee eclared the motion carried nanimously. RECEIVING THE CABLE TEL ISION COMMISSION -MINUTES -OF MAY 1979: MOTION by Councilwom Ptoses to receive the minutes of the •able Television Commission MZOFEXECOTING May 9, 1979. Seconded by Councilman i4neider. Upon a voice vote, ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion car ied unanimously. Councilman Sasked for a .copy of'the attachments referr d- to in these minutes. CONSIDERATIO GRANT AGREEMENT. WITH METROPOLITAN COU L FOR NORTH PARK VISITA7ION CENTER'GRANT: _ l hr. Qures i, City @lati►age:r; stated all costs for constr)and e pr jects, as J describ in the program documentation, would be eligiayme t after April 1979. He stated the maximum amount providede gr nt for non - const r ction costs such as professional, legal., engined arc itectural servi es would be 121. Mr. Qureshi stated there is a.e fo transferring the money and if any. interest money is made, -it would e eturned. Cou cilman Barnette questioned under Item 2, Developmeicy, the second -to the last sentence where reference is made to the Grantty, in this case, agreeing to maximize the use of its own personnel and internal services in connection with the administration and accomplishment of.the program. 1� � I 1 0- x- - -. 8431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE P.E., FRIbLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 812)1571.3450 CITY COUNCIL. ACTION TP%KEN NOTICE Mr. Joseph Perrozzi 8181 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr. Perrozzi: June 6, 1979 On June 4L_ 1979y-._ __--- —__ , the Fridley City Council. off i c i u _ a1�t7; t'c tl {cur request. 1:�r a variance _for reduction of lot area - with the stipulations listed bel oai. � --- - Please review the noted stipulations, sign tip^ statement below, and return one copy to. th-e City of Fridley. If ,you have any questions regardin( the a`love action, please gall the Coin: ,unity Office at 571--34150. JLB/de ulations• Reduction of side yards was denied, with stipulations that street easement as required along Riverview Terrace be obtained (8181 Riverview Terrace). Concur with action oaken. June 5, 1979 A A Op: Ing Info from Council Meeting - 6/4/79: I The Jay Park Plat (Nitschke) was tabled indefinitely. Staff is directed to refer the item to Planning Commission for discussion of the following items: .1. The various types of conversions,.and.whether they should be allowed at all. 2. Zero lot lines - single family homes. 3. A review of the existing Townhouse Ordinance for possible modification. It was the feeling of Council that'a comprehensive look should be taken regarding conversions and their impact anda policy statement developed. From the policy statement, appropriate ordinances could be drafted where needed.- William J. Hart rezoning (ZOA #79-02) - Public Hearing set for 7/16. Approved the Perrozzi special use permit (#79-04) in flood plain with the stipulation that drainage be -designed to ensure no -holding of water from properties to the east, and that no water would remain under the house. Approved the James Larson (SP #79-05) second accessory special use permit. Approved the Graves Co. rezoning request (ZOA # 79-06)- public hearing set for July 16, 19790 Vacation request (SAV #79-02) public hearing set.for 7/16/79. The.Perrozzi variance request was approved for reduction of lot area; and reduction of side yards was denied --with sti ulatio s ha reet easement as required along Riverview Terrace be obtai 8181 'ver - view —cv 77 The City Council approved execution of the grant agreement with Metro Council for North Park. Council approved execution of contract with architects for visitation center at North Park, with stipulations that errors and omission insu- rance to cover contract be submitted to City, and that a list of sub - consultants be provided to City. RNS:ik cc: Jerry Darrel / Clyde Dorothy r6wreTlol 1 OF S-rX—1-c— r 1� 07-i1-/ T� �( 0.0/W 19W -a— # CIO leI'IlerV/F� 11e1d,-i'75 Y 26 rl-;� 06 • .I PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 15 1979 Page 2 MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider._ Upon a voice vote, all voting aye;.Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION REQUEST, SAV #79-04 BY ALLAN M. JOHNSON OF JIM MILLER REAL ESTATE 7751 EAST RIVER ROAD MOTION by Councilwoman, Moses to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public, hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Quresh i, City Manager, stated this request involves the relocation of an easement, which is presently located in the. middle of the property. He stated the owner wishes to. vacate this easement and provide an easement along the East side of the property. Mr. Qureshi pointed out, in conjunction with this vacation request, there is a request -for a special use permit on which action was delayed, at the I request of the petitioner, until they could possibly work out something ! with the neighborhood. Mr. Qureshi state the special use permit involved "the installation of gas pumps to be used in conjunction with a convenience' store. He stated this vacation request would be brought back the same time as the request for the special use permit, however, regardless of the outcome regarding the special use permit, he felt the easement should be relocated. Councilwoman Moses stated she felt this convenience store wouldn't fit in at this location. Mayor Nee stated the land is zoned properly for such a use, however, the special use permit was needed for the gas pumps. No persons in the audience spoke for or against this vacation request. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared j the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. + i PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMAL) FOR REVIEWING SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #79-04 FOR J XCOUNCIL TO RE-EXAMINE NEW PROPOSED HOUSE PLANS BY JOSEPH PERROZZI, 8181 RIVERVIEW TERRACE: r� . The informal public hearing was opened by the Council at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Qureshi, City, Manager, stated the Council has approved a special use permit for this - property, but didn't approve the variances requested and asked the petitioner to come back with a plan that would meet the requirements of the code. Mr. Qureshi stated the plan now proposed by Mr. Perrozzi does meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, except staff felt it appropriate to advise the neighborhood what type of house they are proposing. Mr. Qureshi stated notices were sent to all adjoining to they are aware of what is proposed to be built thsprroperteSand iftheyhad a objections, property y y RY J they could voice them here this evening. i Mr. Qureshi stated what is proposed is an."A" frame with two floors and a sizeable attic. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked if they would be using a pile driving technique, as previously discussed. Mr. Perrozzi stated they wouldn't be using this technique, however, there wouldn't be a basement. Councilwoman Moses asked how much taller this home would be from a normal two- 1 story dwelling. Mr. Qureshi stated it would be about 8 feet, 9 inches higher. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he didn't believe the neighbors were aware of the details of the plan. Mr. Qureshi stated it was put in the notices that i this was an unusual plan and was the reason they were notified because of this aspect, even though a public hearing isn't required. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he talked with some of the neighbors and they had other concerns about things such as drainage. He felt they were unaware of the I peculiarities of the house plan. [JI 281 THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 15, 1979 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to o de at 7:35 p. m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegian to the Flag. PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Co ncilwoman Moses, Councilman Schneider and Coun ilman Barnette (arrived at 7:43 p.m.) ABSENT: None INUTES: ETING, SEPTEMBER 24. 1979 (TARIFn nrT MOTION by Counci woman Moses to approve the minut of September 24, 1979 as presented S onded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor\Sceider red the motion carri unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION by Councilmto adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Mosesvoice vote, a voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried una PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING RE ST, OA #79-06, TO REZONE FROM C2S -.. --•------- MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to ai the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hea ing. econded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, May Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public h aring opene at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the proper involved in a rezoning is generally located at 1175 73-1/2 Avenue and nvolves Lots 7, and 9 of Block 1, Central View Manor. He stated the pr erty to the East o this parcel is zoned industrial so this would be contig ous to existing indust 'al property. Mr. Qureshi stated t e purpose of the rezoning is or construction of an industrial building for double occupancy. Councilwoman Mos stated it is presently zoned for gen al shopping and asked if any existing use presently fits into that catego Mr. Qureshi ated the only use that is commercial in nature 's the trailer sales.to th North and West of proposed property. He felt the ezoning is compatibl with the surrounding area. At this time, 7:43 p.m., uncilman Barnette rrived at the meeting. Councilwoman Moses asked the typ of business and th amount of clientele they would anticipate. Mr. annucci, one of the petitioners, stated half of the building woul e use for an electrical contracting business and the other half for a gen al C struction business. He stated the only persons that would probably be in e building would be their own employees. He felt this business wouldn't ave more than five employees at one time and London Construction would pr b - ably have about the same amount of employees. No other persons in the audience spoke for or against this rezoning. 283 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1979 Page 3 Mr. Qureshi stated the purpose of this informal hearing was so they could review the plan. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney,.stated, basically, the question is if the house meets the code requirements, he was not certain Council had any authority to say the design has to be one way or another. He stated the purpose of the special use permit is to make sure it is built high enough to avoid flooding during high water and to avoid causing extraordinary problems to the surrounding area. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would agree, but the Council is in the position of having people review it and then telling them they really don't have any authority anyway. Mr. Herrick stated they are not asking anyone to review it as far as the architectural style. Mr. Qureshi stated they wanted to make the neighbors aware of the plan, as the plan originally approved by Council was entirely different. Mr. Herrick asked if the house is higher than what the building code permits. Mr. Qureshi stated there was no feet height requirements of this type. Mr. Roy Klingbeil, 8199 Riverview Terrace, stated he assumes they are proposing building this way because of high water and pointed out, in 1965, when the water was supposed to be the highest, it never came up to his home. He felt, if the house is built as proposed, it would depreciate the value of other people's property. He stated a remark was made to him that the reason the house is to be built this way was because if they didn't like it, it could be taken out. He stated he didn't feel the plan for the house fits in with the area. Mayor Nee pointed out that the City Attorney indicated that the City wouldn't have the authority to deny it based on the design. Mr. Roy Klingbeil stated the Council has the authority to protect the people's rights so that their property values aren't lowered. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt if this home is going to be much higher than rambler height, it would be somewhat of a problem, but they have been advised regarding their authority. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed house plans. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the informal hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the hearing closed at 8:05 p. m. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive a reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Se nded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor N declared the motion carried unanimously and the pu Ing opened at 8:0 p.m. Mr. B <2r an, City Plann stat this Comprehensive Development Plan has go through an extensive p 1' process through the Planning Commission and it member Commissions. He s ted different sections of the plan were re - vi wed by the different co ss* ns, and the Planning Commission has reviewed a 1 the sections. I M . Boardman stated th document is ivided into seven different sections, as f llows: Land use; E ironmental Res rces; Critical Area; Housing; Parks a d Open Space; Tra portation and Wate , Sewer and Solid Waste. He stated it is split up in hese particular secti s primarily because of the require - men s of the Me opolitan Council. Mr. Bo stated, in 1976, the Legislature assed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act which requires communities, schools nd other public agencies to do mandatory public planning. He stated the Me opolitan Council has the responsibility to review these plans and approve r make recommendations 284 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1979 Page 4 regarding the plan so changes they feel are necessary for regional develop- ment can be made. He stated the City must have some comprehensive planni• completed and the capital improvements and implementation strategies appro e by December 31, 1979. He stated the City is trying to meet the desired go is to accomplish the comprehensive planning process by the end of this year h'e•stated it is necessary to hold public hearings before the Planning C m - mission and the City Council regarding this Comprehensive Plan. He s ted, once the plan is approved by the Council, it has to be submitted to r� igh- boring communities for their comments to be forwarded to the Metrop 'titan Council. He stated the Metropolitan Council also reviews the plan, regarding regional policies. r. Boardman briefly summarized the direction of the Com prehen ive Plan s it relates to the key issues of land use, environmental re ources, housing, arks and recreation and transportation. M yor Nee stated he had a lot of comments regarding this an and felt it s ould be discussed at a conference meeting. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he hasn't seen the Ian, and if it in - vol es enforcement or interpretation, he indicated I/ would like to review it. Counc lman Schneider stated, in the Housing Sect' n where reference is made to 2, 0 additional housing units, he asked if ey could obtain the correct figure. Mr. Boar man stated the figure has changed mewhat, but the policies haven't changed t at much and this can be discusse at the conference meeting. Mr. Qureshi sVak hat notice was given that this was a public hearing on the Comprehean. MOTION by CouFitzpatrick to ose the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Sc. Councilman Scstated all mmissions have done a commendable job in bringing thehis prese form. He stated the planning staff and the Commissiopu a lot work into this Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Fick st he concurred with Councilman Schneider's comments and e staf nd Commissions deserve a lot of credit. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN N THE ION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried Una mously. or Nee felt something should be done to make this document av ilable to the blic. Mr. Boardman stated it is avail- able at the libraryAnd City Hall. or Nee stated if the City receives a similar document from other surrounding c'ties, it doesn't really state what is proposed. Mr. oardman stated the actua proposals would be in the capital improvements an implementation document. Councilman 5cneider questioned if staff had any 'dea of the cost to prepare this plan. Mr. Boardman stated the total cost wasabout$32,000, with $22,000 being paid/by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Herpick asked if the plan was submitted to the Chamb of Commerce and other ocal civic groups. Mr. Boardman stated he has meth several groups r and viewed the plan. Qureshi suggested further discussion of the plan at a confence meeting then determine how the Council wishes to proceed. OLD BUSINESS: LDING Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this is a request from Mr. Anderson to build a steel garage at 7748 Elm Street. He stated staff's concern was tha the garage would be an extension of a non -conforming use and a step further away from the policy the City has maintained regarding non -conforming uses. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS � (New, Alterations, Additions, or Repairs) • OWfJER:a S f g /. A, BUILDER ADDRESS: (3 6affADDRESS: TEL N0: 5� % j TEL NO: Construction Location STREET NO: STREET: LOT: b BLOCK. ADDITION: Corner Lot: inside Lot: `y Setback: Sideyards: Applicant attach to this form two Certificates of Survey of lot and proposed building location drawn on certificates to scale. DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION Front: 1 Depth: Height: Squane.Feet: Cubic Feet: Front: Depth: Height: Square - Feet: Cubic Feet: Type of Construction: (�-- Estimated Cost: $J�, Rb Be (bmpleted: / Z . 1 Alt. A Alt. B Proposed Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired: $ $ SEE REVERSE SIDE OF SHEET. ..The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City of Fridley Ordinances and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE: ••---Loh-17 SIGNATUitE :. ` Stipulations: • i7VlL.UIINV r L►W►1I FCC J1.11CLULr_ •°. SECTION 2. The inspector of I3uildirrgs shall, 'before issuing permits for the erection of any building or structure, or for any addition to any existing building or structure, dr for any alterat•.ioil or repairs.to•any existing building or structure, upon application ' therefore, require the payment by the applicant for such permit of fees to the amount herein below set forth and in the manner herein provided to -wit: • a urVm CONSTRUCTION: Single family domes and Garages: $4.00/1,000 cubic feet. PIAN CRECK: 25 percent of building permit fee. DRIVEL•?AX DEPRESSION: (Concrete, Curb Streets Only) • ` Alternate A: Removal and replacement of concrete curb and gutter only; Driveway width plus 6 feet x (.15.75 Alternate B: Removal and replacement of concrete curb and • gutter and install a 3 foot wide approach with 6 inch depth; Driveway width plus 6 feet x $17.85 -ADDITIONAL INF ION For the purpose of computing fees for building permits, the cubical contents of any building or addition, is determined by multiplying the ground area covered from a point six (6) inches below the floor line of the basement or the cellar to the average heights of the upper surface or to the average height of the roof surface of the main gable of a pitched roof. • For repairs or alterations to an existing structure, the fee shall be at the rate of $3.00 per each five hundred dollars -($500.00) or fraction thereof in the cost of -all proposed work. .In -no case shall the fee charged for any permit as set forth in Section 2 be less- -than $7.50 plus $.50 state surcharge. VERIFICATION OF FOUNDATION • •NOTE: Permits for construction will be issued a minimum of 24 hours from the time of application to allow for proper review of the proposed structure and of the construction site. A Certificate of Survey of the lot, showing the location of the foundation once it has been constructed will be required before proceeding with the framing. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Application for a Certificate of Occupancy shall be made ten (10) days prior to the use or occupancy of any structure for which a building permit has been issued; and said structure shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. a e i