Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
VAR 03.76
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8100 Ruth Street N.E. A. PUBLIC. PURPOSE SERVED BY REC)UIREMENTS: Section 205.053, 4A, Front yard setback of 35 feet Public purpose served by this section is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consideration -of the neighborhood to reduce'the "building line of site,, encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Lot is unbuildable without the listed variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Points to be considered in this request ate as follows; 1. It is assumed that it is an individual's right to build on his or her property. 2. Without allowing the variance request, the area can be developed only at a great expense. 3. The cost of construction if the variance is granted would still.be higher than normal due to extensive foundation construction on the back side of the house. 4. Without allowing the variance, a great deal of natural terrain would be sacrificed in order to construct a house on this property. With these points in mind, the City staff's position is as follows; 1. We feel the best solution would be to grant the request for a variance from the required 35 feet to 20 feet for the front yard setback. 2. An alternate would be to reduce the house in width to 24 feet and thereby increase the setback from 20 feet to 22 feet. 3. Another alternate would be to design a different type of house more suitable to the lot. 0 FRIDLEY A?PEALS COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 0 9 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Virginia 4ahlberg, .fat Gabel, Dick Kemper, Jim Memel ; I;'RIDL.Z ie -PEAS COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 91, 1976 4 AGE 2 ADIMINISIRATIVF REPORT A. PUBLIC 2URPOSE 32EV1 D By R�<ZUIREYENTSa Section 205.Ub3, 4A, Front �j and setback of 65 feet. Public purpose served by this section is to allow for off-street. parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthotic consitaeration of th-neif.,hoorhood to reduce the "building lin:i of site" encroachment into the neighbor's :Front yard. B. STATED HARDSdI.P: Trot is unbuildable without the listed variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE, STAFF REIVIE,V.* Points to be --onsidered in this request are as follows: 1. Without allowing the variance request, tha area can be developed only at a r;reat expense. 2. The cost of construction if the variance is granted would still be higher than normal due to extensive foundation construction on the back side of the house. 30 Without allowing the variance, a great deal of natural terrain woula be sacrificed in order to construct a house on this property. 4. An alternate would be to reduce the house in width to 24 feat and thereby increase the setback from 20 feet to 22 feet., 5. Another alternate would be to design a different type of house more suitable to the lot. MOTI4I bs Plea�ell seconded bit Gab�;l� to ecept the Admin{strati Report. W Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. Mr. Rotter explained he is asking to reduce the front yfard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet recausa of the creek (Spring Brook) running in back. fie saia with a 3b foot setback he would oe down in the creek bed. Mr. Fiemal asked hire if another design ;night be more appropriate, and Mr. Rotter replied it - was Just a question of how. to utilize the space. He explainect how he could change the house a bit to make it smaller, but was reluctant to do this as he wanted to keep within the price range of the houses in the area. He said it is a 462,000 house, so it would be an attribute to the neighbor- hooa. It was noted that even though no variances were given the other properties in the area, they were not in a direct line. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked the property owners in the area who were present to step forward. Mr. and Mrs. Gerala Carney, 8125 Ruth Street, Fridley; Mr. and Mrs. John 4alton, 8066 Ruth :street, Fridley; . FRIDLEY AHEALS COMMISSION MEP.TING MARCH 9V 1976 - PAGE 3 and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Fritch, Bivl Fairmont Circle, Fridley, came forward to hear the proposal and review the Plans, Mr. Rot.ter showed them the photographs and overlay of the property,, and pointed out whore= the house would be located with the 3b foot setback and with a 20 foot setback. He explained that the property was once zoned for planned development which meant there could be a shopping center there now, ana emphasized that he was trying to utilize the Property as well as he coula. while trying to maintain the quality� of the houses around it. Mr. Walton read the following l�Of obJection addressed to the Appeals Commission and dated March 2.1 A76: "Our objection to Mr. Davia Rotter's request is on the following counts: (1) The 3b foot rule was passed by lridl4.3y council in the public interest - to ansure for Fridley residents a %pa environment and life. style proper to a suburban community of qua.0,ty., to prevent the crowding 'h - that Is of6 en in ver poor areas ana in urban areas. n passing the law., the intelli3ent members of the council must have realized that there was a variety in lot shape ana size. If Mr. Rottar of Rottlund Construction, Inc. builds his residence at 8100 -Ruth Street he will most certainly crowd the front view of two residr.-nees, across from this lot, and the adjoining resid5noes. While Mr. Potter msy, have no objection to this crowding, the. -Council's decision should take into consideration possible future owners' welfare. (2) Mr. dotter of Rottlund Construction was in full knowledge of the 35 foot rule, and corjsequf-,ntl; ., the probisms of building on this lot, whp:n he purchased lots in the area and proceeded to develop them with construction of residences. In effect, he consented to the fact that the lot was use, -less for Rottlund Construction Company's construction program when he nurchased the land from the former owners. In a discussion with Mr. Rotter two years ado concerning possible construction by his company on improvements to our home, this fact was brought out. He mentioned that the lot under then Law coula not be developed by his company, and offered to sell it to us for $7UQU.00. (3) Building a house on this small lot will cause congestion to the imnediate area, and reduce the qualitd- and value of other homes in the area. dhatevir 11r. Ro-tter's objection, it would be impossible, to get a definitive picture of the exact effect of construction on the immediate area without seeing the construction plans for development of this lot. This plan should also include site plans of existing construction on lots bordering Lot 4, Block 3., BourUeauxvs Spring Brook Addition (particularly facing and no.joining), so that 0 a co ate picture of the consee quancs of the Council's decision - -,ap.�. in this matter coula be had." Tne letter was signed by� John and Florence Vialton. MOTION by Plemel, seconded b� Gabel,.to accept the letter Of U-biection as part —6T-thEe-'minutes ol- tnej me-atln.:7. Upon a voice ii—tev- all being aye. the motion carr3.ack. FRIDLEY . APPEALS 001iDUSSION MEETING MARCH 91, 1976 -.PAGE 4 Gabel pointed out that if Mr. Rotter would fins a plan that would come within the 35 foot setback., he could go ahead and build. Chairwoman Wahlberg said that sari a valid point, as the city cannot prevent it if it is within code. She also explained that this was a lUO foot lot, which is considered a rarity, and was quite .Large.. Chairwoman 4ahlberg read the following letter from Margaret iv)ulrine and Janice IA,5�-ere of 8165 Ruth Street.' "When we purchased our home at 8135 Ruth St., we were Iola b3- the builder that houses would not be ouiit on thethree lots across from us. Since then two houses have been built there and now a third? No. de are opposed to the building of a house on th-- lot of BIUU Ruth Street." MOTION by KF)mo-r seconded by Fl-gnel, to have the 1(-.tt!Nr entered as part of the riinut�,q of thr- mqptinR. Upon a voice vote, all being aye, the motion carried, Mrs. Carney stated that she and her husband live across the street from this lot, and their main objection is to the 2v foot setback,, but they also felt it would lower the value of the neighbor's horses as it would be situated In front of theirs. Mr. Rotter explained if he moved the house back it would br-ak up the view in the back Wards. He stated he was trying to enhance the property,, and would use as much less of the 20 feet as possible. He said he was also tr-)ing to prevent disturbing the creek. Jdrs. Walton asked if J'Ar. Rotter could come up with as different design, and he replied he couldnt build a multi-level home because of the water problem In the area. ChAirwoman Waftlberg asked if there was any way to determine if previous construction in that area has caused the creek to shift. Mr. liolaen replied that he doubted it had., and that he felt nature had caused the creek to change. He said that construction on the lot may tend to maintain the creek. Mr. K�Mper asked if Mr. Rotter planned to do anything to maintain the creek bank to prevent it from eroding, and Mr. Rotter answered he did. Mr. Holaen explained that actually the 20 feet did not include the nine feet of boulevard, so actually the house would be 29 feet back and the neighboring homes were just slightly further ahead. Mr. Carney- asked if Mr. Rotter.would would build on the lot regardless if the variance passed or not, and Mr. Rotter said he would. He explained he did not want to build a small house where values were higher., He said the area was nice and he wanted to keep it that way. He wanted to go with something that was practical and an asset to the neii-hborhoods He felt that since he is a builder, he could utilize the lot to the best, FRIDLa APPEALS COITIISSION IgEl, TING M,,RCH 9v 1976 ® WAGE 5 Kemper stated that there was a paradox --pane set of neighoors didn't want the house moved back, and another set; of neighbor@ didn't want it moved forward. MOTION bN Gabel seconded 1. If'lame:l to close the public he;arin ,® Upon a voice vote, all aging 9y(oq the motion carried. Chairwoman Wahlberg stated that an curve. of the creek, it would still build a house which could be a "L" be build into the back nortion and Mr. Holden said that would be.possible to the lot itself'. fol lowing the be potentially passible to sftRpe which would allow it to avoid the erosion problem. some extent on the south side of the lot. Kemper asked Mr. Holden his opinion us to what would happen to the creek if nothing was built on that lot, and if there would be deterioration on that propert-� if no retaining wall were built. Mr. Holden said if nothing was constructed on the lot he anticipated continued erosion to th5 point where 'qhs large trees might fall into the :reek. lie said th:?� crook has moved over a cf�riod of three to four years, and with no retaining wall there would also be continued erosion. Chairwoman 'fi ahlberg asked Mr. Rett -Ir if he would be willing to look at ether plans and do sorae further checking to see if sorao compromise could be arrived at, and he replied he already hada He; stated the house would have to be a split marry becaausn of the wat-�r problmm, He felt the same problem would exist with a "L" shaped house. He stnted when you st;arb getting in'ces unusual designs the value is considerably higher. Chairwoman euahlberg told Mr. Rott!�r if he would like to explore some additional alternatives the Board could table the r,�quest. Mr. dotter stated he would prefer some, type of decision at this meeting to avoid re;petition® Gabel ctI-ttea Vaat it seP�mea some of the People just.dian't want a house built an that lot because of tele nice view they haa. She, said Mr. Rotter did yawn the property anu dia nave a right to guild on it. Chairwoman W ahlner,g sfaia @rq concurred soon e -what, but the main dilemma was still the st,�tt)ack as the, lot unbuildable if the petitioner coulo net cu.Ange the djsi ,n of hys haus . Kemper states tiia,�L hey .was eonce�rne5d about two thins: 1) Thi righ,t of a property, owner to build on a pi6ce9 of property within the ceae ana the Board's aoi,lity to. justly a.drainister that coati when th-gr® are hardships, and 2) the particular anvironm6nt Sapp®cars to be aet�4riorating and if a home were built there it could prevent further erosion of the creek. H-5 stated that parking was no problem, but there was the possible aea'thetic problem according to the neighbers. 17777 FRIDLM( !u?P `13ALS COMMISSION P1lE;1TING MARCH 99 1976 -- .PAGE 6 MOTION b a'impr� s cancled b; Gst�el_� a �prve the request f'�r va�riaa�ce . Ktu,mper suited that if' the variance was approved the build -;r should actte!ipt to sit they house bkok as far as possible., ana also ouild s9me t� p:t of retaining wail. This was acceptable to fir. Rotter. Upon a voice vote, `,7ahlberg, . Gabel and Kemper voting aye, Plersa®1 voting nay, the motion ca.rrl5d. Chs.irwoman adahlberg stated thgat this vaaula go beform the Planning Commission on thea 17th of Maarch, 1976. 3. ELF;CTION OF OFFIC &RiS - ChAI9,4AN AND VICE CHAIRA10 Chairwoman 4ahibnrg axolained the Beard hao been requested to e.t�c t a Chaairmnn ansa Vice Chairrnn.n as they n.. -;d�d a member to attend the Planning Commis3ivn m,�pting on March 17, 1976, and it must be as duly 'authorized �a,5=er of the Cipm.gission. Sh,; stated the el�-,eted officers woula b� un for re-electiotz in J'ul� 9 1976. Nomination oy KK�mper to €ap?oint Mrs. iiahlb erg as Chairwoman as he felt she was eminently qualified. Upon sa voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman ffRhlb-5rg was elected. Nominaatien bey Flemel to appoint Mrs. Gabel as Vice. Chairwoman as she haa ex,.3-rience on the BoArd and was r�-- mtlq.rly in attendance. Upon as voice vote, ail vetin; eye, Mfrs. uabe.L ways elected. 4. ITEMS RL'F'r.,RRED TO THIP, COMMISSION FROiuI THE PLANNING COWVIISSION; Chairwoman vV hlbsrg welcomed Alex Barna to the Commission. He will officially take lois position on April 1s 1976, She a..so noted that Pat Gabel had been re-elected to the Borird. Chairwoman Wahlberg stated that since the youth were having conflicts, among themselves, the Fridley Youth Center plan is cancelled temp- orarily emporarily until they can gree on one concept. Chairwoman tibIahlbsrg informed the Com.aission that the Warks and. Recreation Commission nam�td a park after Glen Thompson.. She also stated there were nine unnRmed parks in the city at this time, and i'arks ana Rscre�tion is -soliciting names for these parks. Suggestions fGr names should go to either Chairwoman Wahlberg or Mrs. Gael. . With reference to the Comprehensive Housing Plan, Chairwoman Raahlberg said the Cit-� has maae an application to the Metro Council for $bU,UOO to be used for a number of Projects eatlinad in the Comprehensive Housing Plan. She tela the Board that Mrs. Gab -!,U has b,sen studj ing the plan and. ethew members are welcome to lsek at it. She netea that In the application that was mane, the view was very complimentary toward the staff, ana the City of Friciley received top ratings. )Uv4Gaon SUTPaGoGa TP612TIO(Is0 TaativqR 6 Pr-144TUIqns kUnJ40Gds�a P',ZTI,.l Iq V. UPT - 0-4 QT -14 Gke 10 16 i C G)L[--1 BUT40A TTV 6;�qoA GOTCA 0 U0,dfj 11 " J M� * 6 0,'R TIE 0 TO 3 -1CU A T V,' C j e Noncyl '0dUj!jf.7.v I 044 uano�b*o & q pe-puac;D0 'r'T :MSYMUOMY .409fo-Xd 4UsWdGTQAQ(T TVDTqTan 91Q4 UT UTOr SOTPTal , q2tjj PQAoaddv ueriq gull qT 6aGATU TddT89TSSTlq Qq4 50 4UQWdOTQAG(j UV@aV TgqT4WO QqI 04 QOUQa9JGa UT antI4 DIUS BJQqTqVY., UISWO.MaTWU L aDVJ - OLU 6F HOH'VFI DRILTI[IfErf molssnmoo !SprlcTjv Tutqami 5 i QB /� ba tea` -Ot0 UR ?'°"'°% AJm� c� OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hail at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, March 9, 1976 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4, A, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the construction of a singly family dwelling on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request byMr. David Rotter, 8140 Ruth Street N.E. , Fridley,. Minnesota 55432) . 7 �L -111-2 Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA WAHLBERG ACTING CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from the 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 cnly a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. 0. �t, e4 Oe 10/0 3 B. 8066 Ruth Street Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432• Appeals Commission City of Fridley City Hall of Fridley Fridley, Minnesota 55432. Gentlemen and Ladies of the Commissions Thank you for the opportunity of stating our objection to Mr. David Rotter's request for variance of Section 205•053,4,A, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the contruction of a single family dwelling on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. Our objection to Mr. David Rotter's request is on the following counts: - (1) The 35 foot rule was passed by Fridley council in the public interest - to ensure for Fridley residents a type environment and life style proper to a suburban community of quality, to prevent the crowding that is offensive in very poor areas and in urban areas. When passing the law, the intelligent members of the council must have realized that there was a variety in lot shape and size. If Mr. Rotter of Rottlund Construction, Inc. builds his residence at "8100 Ruth Street N.E.", he will most certainly crowd the front view of two residences across from this lot, and the adjoining residences While Mr. Rotter may have no objection to this crowding, the Council's decision should take into consideration possible future owners' welfare. (2) Mr. Rotter of Rottlund Construction was in full knowledge of the 35 foot rule, and consequently, the problems of building on this lot, when he purchased lots in the area and proceeded to develop them with construction of residences. In effect, he consented to the fact that the lot was useless for Rottlund Construction Company's construction program, when he purchased the land from the former owners. In a discussion with Mr. Rotter two years ago concerning possible construction by his company en improvements to our home, this fact was brought out. He mentioned that the lot under then law could not be developed by his company, and offered to sell it to us for $7000.©0. - 1 - - 2 - (3) Building a house -on this small lot will cause congestion to the immediate area, and reduce the quality and value of other homes in the area. Whatever Mr. Rotter.'s objection, it would be impossible to get a definitive picture of the .exact effect of construction on the immediate area without seeing the con- struction plans for development of this lot. This plan should also include site plans of existing construction on lots bordering Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition (particularly. facing and adjoining), so that a complete picture of the con- sequences of the Council's decision in this matter could be had. If Mr. Potter of Rottlund Construction persists in his attempts to have the law amended for the greater profit of his construction company, then it is requested that such a construction plan be submitted to the Council and to his neighbors before final decision is reached. This might mean delay of a decision in this matter, but it would . also mean an intelligent decision, taking into account the welfare of those residents who reside in the immediate area in dispute, and the welfare of all Fridley citizens in the future. Resp ct ally submitted, x ^P011.,�. u144elot" J6hn and Florence Walton. March 2, 1976 s OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals.Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 .P.M. on Tuesday, March 9, 1976 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4, A, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 .feet to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota.- (Request by Mr. David Rotter, 8140 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley,. Minnesota 55432). IgL -111-2 Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA WAHLBERG ACTING CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from the 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 cnly a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. 3/16/76 City of Fridley To whom it may concern: In regards to the March 9th meeting at which time Mr. Dave Rotter requested the variance on lot 4 changed from 35 feet to 20 feet from the cities 9 foot boulevard. At the meeting Mr. Rotter stated that he would build "regardless", if he got the variance changed or not. But, is the lot actually "buildable" at the 35 foot variance considering the size of house he has in mind to build, which would be very close to the creek bed, and also might cause a problem with the water table if the variance is not changed. As it was discussed at the meeting, Mr. Rotter knew when he purchased "Spring Brook Addition", that lot 4 would be difficult to build. A large house on lot 4 may spoil the natural appearance of the lot and area, and maybe change the flow of the creek. Is Mr. Rotter really interested in using lot 4 for its best qualities, of a natural creek area or is his only interest building a particular style house. Mr. Rotter also stated that the house that he has plans to build would increase the value of the properties around it. Maybe a different plan house that would compliment the natural surroundings of the lot and creek would be just as pro- fitable to all concerned. If a house is to be built on lot 4, the 20 foot variance would probably be best inorder to maintain the natural surroundings of the lot and protect the creek area. Mr. 4 Mrs. Robert Fritch 8101 Fairmont Circle - lot 7 owners ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8100 Ruth Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENTS: Section 205.053, 4A, Front yard setback of 35 feet Public purpose served by this section is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the "building line of site" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Lot is unbuildable without the listed variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Points to be considered in this request are as follows: 1. Without allowing the variance request, the area can be developed only at a great expense. 2. The cost of construction if the variance is granted would still be higher than normal due to extensive foundation construction on the back side of the house. 3. Without allowing the variance, a great deal of natural terrain would be sacrificed in order to construct a house on this property. 4. An alternate would be to reduce the house in width to 24 feet and thereby increase the setback from 20 feet to 22 feet. 5. Another alternate would be to design a different type of house more suitable to the lot. OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, March 9, 1976 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4, A, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. '('Request by Mr. David Rotter, 8140 Ruth Street N.E., Fridley,.Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA WAHLBERG ACTING CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from the 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. Mailing List for variance request on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Park Addition Block 2 Lot 5 Mr. & Mrs. H. Ralph Barness 8121 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Claire Moron 8111 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 7 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch 8101 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 8 Home Federal Savings & Loan, 730 Hennepin Ave. Mpls. 55403 Lot 9 Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Shipshock 8071 Fairmont Circle N.E. Block 3 Lot 1 Mr. & Mrs. Gary Johnson *Lot 2 Mr. & Mrs. David Rotter Lot 3 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Venne Lot 4 Home Federal Lot 5 Mr. & Mrs. John Walton Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Christian Block 4 8160 Ruth Street N.E. 8140 Ruth Street N.E. 81T8 Ruth Street N.E. 8066 Ruth Street N.E. 8026 Ruth Street N.:E. Lot 1 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Burris 8160 Ruth Circle N.E. Lot 2 Mr. & Mrs. Lester Russel 8110 Ruth Circle N.E. Lot 3 Mr. & Mrs. James Mitchell 8120 Ruth Circle N.E. Lot 4 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Carney 8125 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 5 Margaret Mulrine & Janice Meyers 8135 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Klinefelter 8145 Ruth Street N.E. Block 5 Lot 10 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Jorgesen 8101 Ruth Circle N.E. (Petitioner) ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8100 RUTH STREET N.E. This report was prepared in response to a request by the Appeals Commission in their March 9th, 1976 meeting consideration of a variance to the 35 foot front yard setback requirement at 8100 Ruth Strut N.E. The staff was asked to determine if any governmental bodies or departments have imposed any restrictions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek in the area in question. This report is to be presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17th, 1976 meeting in conjunction with their consideration of the March 9th Appeals Commission Minutes. REPORT It was first determined that neither "Rice Creek Watershed District" or "Coon Creek Watershed District" were involved. (The area in question lies between their respective jurisdictions.) Spring Brook Creek can best be described as a "Public Waterway" in as much as it drains the North Park area which is designated as such. The Pollution Control Agency of Minnesota has no jurisdiction in this area on such questions as house setbacks from the Creek. The State Department of Natural Resources has no jurisdiction on work near a "Public Waterway", but they would require permits before any work could take place directly on the Creek banks or in the Creek itself. The City's Flood Plain Ordinance jurisdiction does involve Spring Brook Creek, but only from the Mississippi River to East River Road. (The area in question is upstream from East River Road.) Finally, the City of Fridley's Public Waterways section of the City Code addresses itself only to work on the immediate banks of Spring Brook Creek or in the river bed itself. On the basis of the above information, it appears at present that there are no restrictions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek in the 8100 block of Ruth Street. However, any work on this property on the banks of the Creek or in the Creek itself should be first cleared through the City of Fridley Engineer, and also through the Department of Natural Resources. Prepared March 15, 1976 by Ronald E. Holden Building Inspection Officer y �� City of' Fridley r AT 7HE 70P OF THE TWINS �'� • t4 __���_COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. 1 PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �`'�"�' ,•J 619-56(1-3450 SUBJtcr . AP'PLIC ATION TO BOARD ' OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PACE .1 OF 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name Address Phone Legal Description Lot No. L Block No. 32,47 Tract or Addn. r149 / "/gi6e 9 cic( e Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) �E✓� 610'0"/G� /!moi /[// 'an,.��� c�� ���%� 77�� D��a c_®� Date Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. Signature Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals i City Council Action and Date r City of 1i eidIe-y AT THE TOP of THE TWINS buoncr APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS rjL s r - •-----�' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 St a f f Report) NUMBER 910—F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/?5 PAGE OF 2 2 AfPROVED.BY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing, Plan Date To Attend Nim Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Mailing List for variance request on Lot 4', Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring' Brook Parkr Mail Addition Notified Block 2 Lot 5 Mr. & Mrs. H. Ralph Barness 8121 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Claire Moron 8111 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 7 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch 8101 Fairmont Circle N.E. Lot 8 Home Federal Savings & Loan, 730 Hennepin Ave. Mpls. 55403 Lot 9 Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Shipshock 8071 Fairmont Circle N.E. Block 3 Lot 1 Mr. & Mrs. Gary Johnson 8160 Ruth Street N.E. *Lot 2 Mr. & Mrs. David Rotter 8140 Ruth Street N.E. (Petitioner) Lot 3 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Venne 8118 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 4 Home Federal Lot 5 Mr. & Mrs. John Walton 8066 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Christian 8026 Ruth Street N:E. Block 4 Lot 1 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Burris 8160 Ruth Circle N.E. Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Mr. & Mrs. Lester Russel Mr. & Mrs. James Mitchell Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Carney 8110 Ruth Circle N.E. 8120 Ruth Circle N.E. 8125 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 5 Margaret Mulrine & Janice Meyers 8135 Ruth Street N.E. Lot 6 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Klinefelter 8145 Ruth Street N.E. Block 5 Lot 10 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Jorgesen 8101 Ruth Circle N.E. , .moi �-- jpqns" -��a+U �O) 51J s� L'to'►\S �$x.b P rtC Soco co `PV Lit Um� - We, -r._• .elnr. ,tri.. � ?w�A• t;+.^.^ ^S."^.. �.� � v _ d = n 13]_64r;� pd Xj0 w I06 104 50 0 129.3E G 136 92 ... I T,;j = , ® , . ,fr `�, j.. v+ �• `' _ loos, In `y Chw; H li°3a 53"E G) S j �,o�� d�/3 ..'• 73.62 {, 60 wt co C4 4 'r9e�d i r/l a- l.L��-t `�`b1.0 . - c�w SID, Nt•3506 •E - la �_: •� a F `— -- 1 \35 i o 1 ✓ 0-3 Sb F N8°33'28'E l61) )° �• M' a b, o Cal o. O� f Li 6 ia� L� e� fB 100 i 95 ..._� t• to O ° '�' y 9Lto 4' - __ . ,,Sy �- nl 0°33 E i• \n+ , r.''71 t O 0 TH vi o(+�gg ' :6 91 ;sj j 1i• ul 34.- 5o kco wi �✓ vy6� uo r.-•-- . • 2 7' -• un 'x —' -- } __------- �� � o �-�• � rte'✓ -.'s4—'! v -t .. � r so so 91 .tat . C� .%'fib i.�!•. .'i� �� �liiCLE Planning Commission meeting March 17, 1976 Pa e 3 Mr, Boardman said that if it pleased the Planning Commission he would prefer to have this go as one item under the Maintenance Code. We will be talking about business licenses in that section. He said a determination could be made at that time, rather than handling them as two separate items. Mr. Scott said he had some reservations about a business license for a home occupation because he thought they were treading on pretty thin ground when they start telling people what they could and could not do in their own home. He said a fellow in his neighborhood had a photography shop and he said some people could take offense of that. He said he thought this should be handled in the review process when they dicussed business licenses. UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 9, 1976 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Scott, that the Planning .Commission ®>'�U receive the Appeals Commission minutes of the March 9, 1976 meeting. Mrs. Gabel said that on the variance request by Mr. Rotter to reduce the front yard setback from 351 to 251 to allow construction of a house at 8100 Ruth Street she would like to go over some of the points that helped us arrive at our decision to approve this variance. She said that Mr. Rotter was present at this meeting. First, the terrain drops off considerably in the back of the lot, and for him to meet the 35' setback would be economically unfeasible. Second, he would run into the water table if he met the normal setback requirement, because some of the neighbors did comment that sometimes their back yards were flooded, and this could happen on this lot also. Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rotter also agreed to put up some type of shoring along the creek to prevent further erosion. She said one of the other neighbors has already done this, and Mr. Rotter said he would be willing to work with this neighbor. Mr. Rotter has also agreed to try to save trees on this wooded lot. Mrs. Gabel said the Appeals Commission felt that the hardships involved on building on this lot were obvious enough to warrant a variance being granted. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received a new administrative report on this request and a letter from a neighbor. He would like a motion to receive these, and then he would read them to the audience. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Scott, to receive the administrative staff report and the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch of 8101 Fairmont Circle. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8100 Ruth Street N.E. This report was prepared in response to a request by the Appeals Commission in their March 9th, 1976 meeting consideration of a variance to the 35 foot front yard setback requirement at 8100 Ruth Street N.E. The staff was asked to determine if any governmental .... ... .... ... ... Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 4 bodies or departments have imposed any restrictions on the •a proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek,in, the area in question. This report is to be presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17th, 1976 meeting in conjunction with their consideration of the March 9th Appeals Commission minutes. REPORT It was first determined that neither "Rice Creek Watershed District" or "Coon Creek Watershed District" were involved. (The area in question lies between their respective jurisdictions.) Spring Brook Creek can best be described as a "Public Waterway" in as much as it drains the North Park area which is designated as such. The Pollution Control Agency of Minnesota has no.jurisdiction in this area on such questions as house setbacks from the Creek. The State Department of Natural Resources has no jurisdiction on work near a "Public Waterway", but they would require permits before any work could take place directly on the Creek banks or in the Creek itself. The City's Flood Plain Ordinance jurisdiction does involve'Spring Brook Creek, but only from the Mississippi River to East River Road. (The area in question is upstream from East River Road.) Finally, the City of Fridley's Public Waterways section of the City Code addresses itself only to work on the immediate banks of Spring Brook Creek or in the river bed itself. On the basis of the above information, it appears at present that there are no restrictions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek in the 8100 block on Ruth Street. However, any work on this property on the banks of the Creek or in the Creek itself should be first cleared through the City of Fridley Engineer, and also through the Department of. Natural Resources. Prepared March 15, 1976 by Ronald E. Holden Building Inspection Officer The following is the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch: City of Fridley: To whom it may concern: "In regards to the March 9th meeting at which time Mr. Dave Rotter requested the variance on Lot 4 changed from 35 feet to 20 feet from the cities 9 foot boulevard. At that meeting Mr. Rotter stated that he would build "regardless" if he qot the variance changed or not. But, is the lot actually "buildable" at the 35' variance considering the size or house he has Lfi mind to build, which would be very close to the creek bed, and also might cause a problem with the water table if the variance is not changed. As it wasdiscussddat the meeting, Mr. Rotter knew when he purchased "Spring Brook Addition", that Lot 4 would be difficult to build. A large house on Lot 4 may spoil the natural appearance of the lot and area, and maybechange the flow of the creek. Is Mr. Rotter really interested in using Lot 4.for its best qualities, Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 5 of a natural creek area or is his only interest building a particular style house. Mr. Rotter also stated that the house that he has plans to build would increase the value of the properties around it. Maybe a different plan house that would compliment the natural surroundings of the lot and creek would be just as profitable to all concerned. If a house is to be built on Lot 4, the 20 foot variance would probably be best in order to maintain the.natural sorroundings of the lot and protect the creek area. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch, 8101 Fairmont Circle - Lot 7 owners." Mr. Boardman gave Chairman Harris another letter that had just been received. MOTION by Gable, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Charles L. Klinefelter, 8145 Ruth Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris read the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Klinefelter. " In reviewing the minutes from the Appeals meeting, March 9th, we feel there have been a few points missed. (1) If Mr. Rotter is asking for this variance to build a bigger and better home than the minimum code requires, he has the right to receive that variance. (2) We feel that if the lot is'kept at the 35 ft. set- back, whoever owns that property is limited to what he or she could build on it. This means there is a possibility of building a low value home, to meet these codes, which could and would lower the value of the homes around it. A higher value home will not only add tax dollars to our City, but increase the value of the surrounding homes. (3) If the real reason for opposition of this variance is because someone doesn't want any home built on that lot, for whatever reason he or she may have, we suggest that person should try to buy that property from Mr. Ratter. This would not tie up someone else's money for another's personal reasons. (4) It was noted that some of the people felt there could be an aesthetic problem with a new home on that lot. We believe we already have that problem there, with weeds, trash, beer cans, etc. We hope this (City) Council sees fit to reduce the setback, or whatever it takes, to allow this man to build. We believe he has the right to build the home he wants, as long as it stays as close to codes as possible under these unusual circumstances. Thank You." Signed by Chuck & Bonnie Klinefelter. Mr. Robert Venne, 8118 Ruth Street N.E., said his home was next door to the lot in question. He said he felt it would be best to allow the petitioner to obtain a variance to construct this house somewhere ahead of the required 35' setback. He said that he knew the drop off from the back yard was extreme. He said that in order to see to it that the neighborhood was maintained in a decent manner in terms of the kind of structure that could be built on this Tot, he thought the structure should match the neighborhood as best it can. He said he would rather see the building farther forward and a nice structure, than to see something with very minimum standards. As far as the placement of this house obstructing the view,*he said from his house in any t Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 187'6 ' Page 6 in any direction, if they examined the curvature of the street, and notice the setback on the extreme ends of it, they all stand further forward than what was requested with this variance, so this wasn't a big problem either. He really felt•that the petitioner deserves to develop this lot in this manner. Mrs. John Walton, 8066 Ruth Street, said that their house was on the other side of the lot in question. She said that at the Appeals Meeting a lot'of time was spent on the type of house that Mr. Rotter wanted to constuct on this lot. She said this lot was a peculiar shape and it had peculiar problems. She said that the Appeals Commission discussed whether they had the right to tell a property owner how to develop this property. She said that the Commission was divided on this issue. She said she felt this was a big house that would crowd the two houses on either side of this property. She thought the proposed house would look like a big apartment building with residences on each side. She said that Ruth Street curved right in front of this lot, and the Creek bed took a lot from the back of the lot, so it left a small space that would be buildable. She said that the construction of this large house would destroy the look and feel of the area. Mrs. Walton said she had asked at the Appeals Commission why there was an ordinance which stated that the front yard setback had to be 351. She said that she was told that it was for parking and aesthetic purposes. She said that Mr. Rotter was claiming that by developing this lot, it would improve the neighborhood, and on the other hand he was saying that aesthetic considerations should not be considered by the Commission. She said she had no objection to Mr. Rotter building on this lot, but•she felt that a variance of that degree would be obnoxious, aesthetically. She said that Mr. Rotter bought up a lot of property at one time in this area, and he knew the problems he was buying with this lot. He knew that a house couldn't be built on this lot without a variance. She said that at this point in time she felt that Mr. Rotter was building this large house for self profit and self gain to the detriment of every neighbor in this block and she protested. Mrs. Gerald Carney, 8125 Ruth Street, said that they lived directly across the street from the lot in question. She said she was told at the Appeals Commission that her feelings didn't count because she objected to this request for personal reasons. We have a smaller rambler type house, and the houses on this side of the street were smaller than the houses across the street. She felt that the type of home that Mr. Rotter wanted to build on this lot would lower the value of our homes because they were not as�.pretentious as the other homes in the area. Mr. Harris told Mrs. Carney that her opinion counted. Mrs. Gable said she was sorry that Mrs. Carney got the opinion that her feelings didn't count because the Appeals Commission did spend an hour and a half coming to their decision. She said that in regard to this house, it was being built on a 100' lot, and the only variance they had asked for was the front setback, otherwise it did meet all the other setback requirements of the code. The Appeals Commission didn't feel this house was too large for the size of the lot. I Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 7 Chairman Harris said that he had been over and looked at the lot and he wondered if there was a site plan for this lot. Mr. Boardman presented a drawing made by Mr. Rotter, showing the elevations on the lot and the terrain next to the creek bank. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Rotter how he would shore up the back of this lot. Mr. Rotter said that he would use railroad ties, and it would be a system of terraces done with railroad ties. He said it would be the same system that was used on the adjoining lot. He said the house was so designed that the end.of the garage would be closest to the high water table. Mr. Harris asked the lot size. Mr. Boardman said it was 100' by 100'. On looking at the site plan, Mr. Harris said that this proposed house would meet all the other setback requirements except the front setback. Mr. Rotter said this would be a split entry home. Mrs. Sporre asked if by approving this variance so that a building permit could be issued if the City would be liable if there was flood or water damage to this home from the Creek? Chairman Harris said no. Mrs. Sporre said -there was a growing danger of flooding because there was 2300 acres in that watershed. Mr. Harris said that from the top'.of the bank to the normal water level of the Creek was 191. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Rotter if he had built other homes in this area? Mr. Rotter said he had. Mr. Scott asked the price range of the homes he had built. Mr. Rotter said from $45,000 to $85,000. Mr. Scott asked if the house he proposed to build would be in that price range? Mr. Rotter said it was comparable to the other houses he had built in the area, somewhere in excess of $50,000. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Rotter if the proposed home would be salable. Mr. Rotter said it would be. Mr. Harris asked if this would be a walk -out. Mr. Rotter said it had to be. Mr. Harris asked if he had thought about any other type of design for this house. Mr. Rotter said this design required the least amount of variance. He said he had asked for a 15' variance, but he wanted to use the least amount of variance as possible. He said he would try to set the house as far back as possible to try and maintain the look of the neighborhood and he would also like to save as many trees as possible. MOTION by Gabel?;. seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that they concur with the Appeals Commission in the approval of a front yard variance on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street, Mr. Bergman said he read in the Appeals Commission minutes that if this house was built at the normal 35' setback that it would involve great expense. He asked Mr. Rotter if he could explain what this meant. Mr. Rottter said this house would cost between $55,000 to $65,000 depending upon the amount of work he would have to do in the back yard. He said that if he met the setback require- ment*he would have to remove six large oak trees, and it would cost $200 a stump to have these removed. He said there wouldn't Planning Commission Meeting March 17,., 1976 Page 8 be any back yard then, and he would have to build.a series of decks so that his children would have someplace to play. Mr. Bergman asked if he had built the homes on Lot 3 and Lot 5. Mr. Rotter said he built the home on Lot 3 but not Lot 5. He said they had to bring some material in for Lot 3 to bring up the rear yard. Mr. John Walton, the owner of Lot 5, said they hadn't hhd any problem with their lot. Mr. Rotter said that Lot 3 looked a lot like lot 4 does now, but it had been shored up with railroad ties and terraced, and,he would continue this same shoring on Lot 4. Mr. Bergman said he was trying to determine the feelings of the neighbors.* Mrs. Gabel said it seemed like the neighbors were pretty evenly divided as far as being for or against the variance. Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rotter had agreed to two stipulations which were to build a retaining wall and to set the house as far back as possible. Chairman Harris said his concern was the bank preservation. He said that if this variance was granted, he thought the staff should pay particular attention to the bank preservation at the time the building permit was issued and during the construction. UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said he had a question on an item that the Appeals Commission did not handle and that was on the blanket variance on the townhouses in Innsbruck Village. Why was that not handled? Mr. Boardman said it was the decision of the City Attorney that under the townhouse ordinance there were no setback require- ments. The townhouses were approved strictly through the town- house plan. Chairman Harris said he thought the attorney had better read the ordinance., It doesn't say that anyplace in the townhouse ordinance. He said the front yard setback was 35' in R-3 zoning and the townhouse ordinance was never meant to preclude the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said it was the' City Attorney's interpretation that the setbacks on a townhouse plan were approved with the plan. Mr. Harris asked if these variances were on a private road or a public street. Mr. Boardman said they were from a public street. Mr. Harris said then they should meet -the setback requirements of a public street in his opinion. He said they could discuss this at the time they considered the townhouse plan for Innsbruck Village. Upon a voice vote on receiving. -of the Appeals Commission meeting, Scott, Bergman, voting aye, *Peterson, -Gabel abstaining, Harris, nay, Chairman,Harris*counting the two abstentions as 1 vote for approval, he declared the motion carried. Mrs. Gabel said she felt this variance should have been acted Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1976 Page 9 upon by the Appeals Commission. Chairman Harris said he voted the way he did because the handling of the variance -for these townhouses hadn't been answered to his satisfaction. l••CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #76-02, BY PLYWOOD MINNESOTA, INC.: To allow the construction of a 10' x 301 billboard in M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to Plywood Minnesota and Wickes, to replace an existing non -conforming sign, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, located on Lot 9, Block 1, Great Northern Industrial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing open. Mr. Charles Seeger, Wickes Furniture, and Mr. Eugene Hunt, Plywood Minnesota, were present. Mr. Seeger said they were back where they started. He said he had talked to Tom.Colbert, the Assistant City Engineer, and to Paul Ruud of Anoka County, and they would like to have the intersection at 51st Avenue after the Industrial Park was developed. He said this development could be in 5 years, 10 years, or 27 years, who knows? He said that what he was asking for was for someone to make a motion to allow us to do what we wanted to do in the first place, which was to take the present billboard and bring it up to the City Code. As he had said before, they would foot the bill for any other business that came into the area if they wanted their name added to this sign. He said that any time they were requested to take this sign down or -to move the sign due to development or a change in the road, they would be very willing to do this. He said that in the mean time, they just wanted to help people to get to these two business establishments, and first and foremost he wanted them to get there without taking their lives in their hands. Chairman Harris said you couldn't get any help from the County at 'all then. Mr. Seeger said the help would be about 10 years down the road. He said they didn't want to jeopardize the public or two multi-million dollar businesses until the County got around to the problem. Mr. Peterson said that he was in complete sympathy with this. problem. He said the only problem as he saw it was that if this special use permit was approved for the sign, he didn`t know if this would take care of a lousy traffic situation. Mr. Seeger said he didn't dispute that this was not the solution to the traffic problem, but this was an interim solution until the City came up with a solution. He said that even if the City could solve this problem in 90 days, they would be willing to take this sign down then. Mr. Harris said he wouldn't hold his breath until the City and County came up with a solution, because so far we had got nothing. 'He said this.problem was started at the time this industrial park was platted. He said this was zoned M-2 and at Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 10 the time it was platted it was never intended that we put 5,000 cars a week into an industrial type operation. What we have is two commercial enterprises in an industrial area. Mr. Harris said it had been his hope that we could have put some pressure on the County to solve this problem. MOTION'by Peterson, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Com- mission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:03 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council apprpval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc., to allow the construction of a 10' x 30' billboard in M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to Plywood Minnesota and Wickes, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, located on Lot 9, Block 1, Great Northern Industrial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. with the stipulations. that a directional arrow be added to the billboard and that new businesses be included on -this sign, the cost of which being borne by Plywood and Wickes. Mr. Scott said he was speaking against the motion because essentially what this was, was a traffic problem.and building billboards solves no traffic problem. He said this was a plain and simple billboard that was in violation of the City Code. He said that if -you want another non -conforming billboard in the City vote yes to this motion. If you want a traffic sign in this area, vote no to the motion. Mr. Bergman said that he felt the Planning Commission was being asked to bear a greater burden than was applicable. He said he somewhat concurred with Mr. Scott's statements. He thought the County was being wishy-washy in their responsiblity. He said he sympathized with Plywood Minnesota and Wickes who want to in the best fashion identify their business, but he said he was not sure that this was a City concern, but was a business concern. He said the request for this billboard was in conflict with the City ordinance in two of the eight criteria. He said that for lack of a better solution, the Planning Commission was being asked to recommend approval of a quick and dirty treatment, and he felt sensitive to giving approval to a non -conforming billboard. Mr. Peterson said he would speak in favor of the motion although he did not necessarily disagree with Mr. Scott or Mr. Bergman, but he did think the City had obligations towards its citizens who are tax paying members and who are in this situation that the City allowed when it granted building permits for this area. If the granting of a non -conforming billboard under the stipulation that if something was done to improve the traffic problem that the petitioners would be happy to tear it down, he felt that from that standpoint we did have an obligation.to give a good City for our businesses to operate in. Maybe we were being asked to solve problems that we shouldn't, but on the other hand these businesses � _.. 14 1 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1976 PAGE 6 MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to adopt the ordinance regarding bicycle registration on first reading., waiving the reading. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1976: CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF.MARCH 9, 1976: D. ROTTER, 8100 RUTH STREET: The Public Works Director said this was a request by Mr. Rotter to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the construction of a single family residence at 8100 Ruth Street. The request is to allow construction adjacent to the creek which meanders through the property and without a variance the property can only be developed at a great expense, it would work a hardship on the construction of the home, and would inflict great damage to the property. The Public Works Director outlined by means of a projection the problems incurred and what would happen to the property depending on which setback was used. The code requires that the house line be 35 feet back from the street property line. In this case the house would be too close to the creek and require extensive foundation at the rear. The -City would work with him and see if we could get it at 22, or 25, or place the house in a different position to reduce the amount of foundation work. The Appeals Commission did recommend approval of the request and it should be noted there were objections from the neighbors, which is why it is before the Council. Mr. Rotter is here to present his request and to answer questions the Council might have. Councilman Fitzpatrick said that he had read all of the minutes of the Board of Appeals and the application and he does not have any questions that were not considered there. Mr. Rotter said that the difficulties in relation to the neighbors was just to the property line. He said that the way the property falls there is not too much property to work with, and in some positions the placement would lead to the flooding of low spots in the back yard. He would like to provide some kind of a retaining wall to prevent erosion. He said that 35 feet would bring the footings below the bed of the creek. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that the Board of Appeals approved it by a four to one vote, and the Planning Commission approved it unanimously. Mayor Nee asked about the claim that some neighbors said that Mr. Rotter promised not to build there. Mr. Rotter said that promise was made by a previous owner of the property. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission and grant the variance. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PLYWOOD MINNESOTA, SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #76-02, 5301 EAST RIVER ROAD: The Public Works Director stated that the intent of the sign is not for advertising. It is for the information of customers to know where the entrance to the commercial establishment is. There was quite a discussion in the Planning Commission regarding the traffic situation relative to the placement of the sign as there is something wrong with the location of the sign. With the development of the industrial park it is hoped that all traffic could be directed to 51st Avenue. We are asking for signalization here. There is a possibility that the intersection might be closed depending on what the future traffic situation provides. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the stipulation that this Special Use Permit might only be allowed to continue until the development r the property. I guess that is what we are saying. We are recommending appoyal for the location of the billboard at that location. REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1976 PAGE 5 second reading and order publication together with the special use permit. There was some concern in that the Planning Commission and the Council did not want a continuation of a junk yard operation in the area, and with that in mind, these stipulations were drawn up, and the items have been talked over with the petitioner, and he has agreed to the stipulations outlined in the agenda. We recommend approval of the special use permit. Mr. Bell, the Attorney, is here to answer any questions. I MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt Ordinance No. 608 on second reading, waiving the reading, and ordering publication. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the Special Use Permit. Seconded by j Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon query by Councilman Starwalt, Attorney Bell stated that although he had not seen the agreement, his client had read it to him over the tele - hone, and it was substantially in the same form. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 115 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED SWIMMING POOLS AND REPEALING PRIOR CHAPM '15 TABLED 12/15/75): The Public Works Director stated that after receiving input from the staff, from.the swimming pool people, and in the conference meeting, the proposed ordinance has been prepared as noted in the agenda. There were two concerns. The first was the fencing around the swimming pool. It is recommended that the height be increased from four to six feet, based on the Planning Commission recommendations. Further that cyclone fencing be permitted and that the entrance of children by means of hand or foot- holds on the fence so as to climb over it be prevented. It is the intention of the staff through the ages. of 3, 4, and 5 The situation was reviewed with. policy to allow cyclone fencing. to basically insure that toddlers and children be prevented from getting into the swimming pool. the State Health Department, and it is their basic The Public Works Director further stated that at the conference meeting there was a discussion about the maximum width of drain grate openings to be one-half inch. The State has changed their regulations to one-half inch because of concern for fingers getting stuck in the grate. Councilman Hamernik inquired about the fencing, if it is to include cyclone fencing? The City Attorney stated that there is some concern in this matter; that a suggestion i is that it not be spelled out but that the staff use their best judgment as there may be some kinds of cyclone fencing that would be permitted, and other kinds that would not be permitted. This could be a matter that the staff could consider when an application is made, and the staff can inquire what type is intended and types would be permitted. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik that the Ordinance be approved on first reading and the reading be waived. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 505 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED BICYCLE REGISTRATION AND REPEALING PRIOR CHAPTER 505 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: i The Public Works Director stated the change was to provide improvement of the enforce- ment of the code. The ordinance outlines the steps and procedures to insure that those people who operate bicycles within the bike paths, lanes, and routes are required to follow certain rules and regulations, and it will be a means of providing the police department and other enforcing agencies to insure the proper operation of bicycles within the system. The City Attorney suggested that the measure be passed on the first reading and see what is wrong in it as there seems to be something garbled in it. It does not read right. Councilman Hamernik inquired about state legislation in reference to bicycles. The City Attorney said there are some passed in the last session. The City Manager suggested that the matter could be adopted and investigate the statutes and then bring it back for a second reading. B da I L � � V 1 � � Hwy t�ll� I a l. ' sq �h• •, a� e/ T � • 6 �( le M •� •,f I 33 f. �, of � J h a David Rotter 8100 Ruth Street NE s iz a I i S ' ^ 1 8P. CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA $5432 TELEPHONE ( &12)571-3450 April 14, 1976 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE d Rotter h Street N.E. Minnesota 55435 Rotten: REQ 8100 Ruth Street$ Lot 4$ Block 31 Bourdeaux°s Spring Brook Addition On the Fridley City Council officially approved our request for daria e with*the stipulations listed below. 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: 1. The house be placed as far back on the lot as possible. 2. Provide a retaining wall. Si CITY PLANNER Co withction .e - n I�x 5ow, �, - rr 1, 1 N--- A r".0, 4 -T, 4, 0K enz 7-a z 1 1 ;:& MIN I � Af! o "'Sc'EI 4 m IR, X" Tt' 4 441 e - R 0 Vwl'l X, A�i yA �A 411 1. 0 4 6 aT Agg M z-0, V F1 'qZg v Ij 4v KV -1 "'A -o� ".;I,; "A k4 T NOW .0- :, Ml� X, i� OVERFLOW LIMITS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STANDARD 77/wr"� ST PAUL DISTRICT INTERMEDIATE PROJECT I ' EGIONA RE L FLOOD. FLOOD FLOODED AREA N Mississippi RIVER VICINITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA MILES ABOVE MOUTH I