The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 11.78City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS , • __ _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. 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 OF J 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name Nedegaard Construction Co.e Inc. Address 3903 Foss Road. Phone 560-0070 Legal Description Lot No. 9 Block No. 1 13 Tract or Addn. Plymouth�.�� Variance Request(s); including stated.hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, -variances, etc., where applicable) We have need for the variances shown and have a hardship because the lot _size -is too small to build a house I=e enough to meat standaxd nodes, Thp 11nusp_ tha.+ is, now on th lot mdestroyed neighbors. The new house will create a better neighborhood and increase the tax basis Cc- 4 r-1-4,0 m.-% oo � 'Pr ' T tst S� ® . t46L%%& � " 1 a ?.ice, PTL® ep %4eo P .-zae�. � i '?-)0�' a-�pvuA' &JO IS n IS r F'L.ae arL- A F S'!to Faow, 10t�� (� 4- Awi 13 8 To 1®' X228 To 6eeting Date Date r!icwc F e 1b5_0 a' Receipt No. Signature�q' 1v�� °'� ��'� To j4 Comments & Recommendations b/I the Board of Appeals City Co i Action and Dat City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS Su6JECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS r f 4 -------COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 • _---.1`• •J 612.560-3450 (Staff Repprt) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/.5 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments IJ el -1:2 Board members notified of meeting by - - List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Date To Attend Name Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Name Nedegaard Construction Co. Inc. 3903 Foss Road Date Phone or Mail G�� Notified St. Anthony, Mn 55418 Mr. & Mrs. Roger Frakie-4548-2nd St. �J+� 7 -M/M Joseph Powers=4544 2nd St. N.E. John Jacobson -4540 2nd St. N.E. _M/M Norman Roseth-4532 2nd St. N.E. Ruth Evans -4528 2nd St. N.E. -Gladys Gladys A. Switzer -966 442 Ave. N.E. Mpls 55421 Iwan Ficenko-4524 2nd St. N.E. M/M Norman Drews-4533 Main St. N.E. - M/M Michael Nordstrom -4643 Main St. N.E. M/M Henry Igelsrud-4590 22 St. N.E. - Mr. & Mrs. Robert Soukup -4578 2kSt. N.E. M/M Chester Schrade-4566 22 St. N.E. _ M/M Paul Isaacson -4550 21ISt. N.E. Avon & Pauline Steele -4538 21ZSt. N.E. M/M Gordon Harstad-4526 22 St. N.E. -M/M Emanuel Berger -4514 22 St. N.E. M/M.Bill Sandin-201 45th Ave. N.E. M/M Gareth Iverson -4519 2nd St. M/M Edwin & Irma Hoglund -4531 2nd St. M/M Wallace Numan-4543 2nd St. N.E. M/M Einar Johnson -4555 2nd St. N.E. M/M Thomas Knaus -4567 2nd St. N.E. rern Dennis -4619 Znd St. N.E. 8431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRI®LEY, MINNESOTA 66432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE (612)671.3460 November 3, 1978 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, November 14, 1978, in regard to the following: Pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, a .request has been made for variances to allow a dwelling to be built at 4526 2nd Street N.E. The variances needed are: The required lot area be reduced from 7500 square feet to 5160 square feet, the front yard setback be reduced from the required 35 feet to 30 feet, reduce the side yard setbacks, one from the required 10 feet to 6 feet, the other from 13 feet to 10 feet, reduce the required floor area.. from the required 1020 square feet to 960 square feet, and increase the lot coverage from the maximum of 25 percent to 26 percent. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unl-ess 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 Commmission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. L / b j- �� 9 2-51? 4 FF NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.. 3903 FOSS ROAD - ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55421 - PHONE 560.0070 October 24s 1978 Thomas Properties Real Estate Thomas Ohlenkamp 115 Silver Lake Road New Brighton, Minnesota, 55112 Dear Mr. Ohlenkamps The City of Fridley would like to have Gladys Switzer, the seller, of property at 4,526 2nd. Street Northeast sign a piece of paper which acknowledges the fact she is.aware that Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. must apply for certain variances on this property in order to build a new house on this land. Please have her sign this letter and we will use that as her acknowledgment. If an questions please call. We will need this by Thursday, October 26, 1978. Thank you. Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. w Gill V. Gruber Office Manager I hereby acknowledge that Nedegaard. Construction Company, Inc. will be applying for variances and that the house at 4526 2nd. Street Northeast will be removed for construction of a new house. r ' Gladys A. ftitzer NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC:.. 3903 FOSS ROAD - ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55421 - PHONE 560.0070 October 25, 1978 City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Fridley, Minnesota Gentlemen' The drawing below shows our proposed new house to be constructed on Lot Nine (9), Block Thirteen (13), Plymouth. As shown on the drawing the lot is 40' wide and 129' deep and we propose to build a new house 24' wide and 40' deep with an unattached garage of 16' wide and 24' deep. a "Fin NEAESAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. �V4� Gill V. Gruber Treasurer 4I CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 October 26, 1978 Ms. Gladys Switzer 966 - 44h Avenue 14. E. Minneapolis, MN 55421 Res Rental Property ILocated at 4526 - 2nd Street N.E. Dear Ms. Switzer: This letter will reiterate our conversation of October 11, 1978 and make clear the City's requirments for the above listed property. It was brought to the City's attention and confirmed by an on site inspection on October 11, 1978 that the exterior of the house.located. at 4526 - 2nd Street N.E. was in need of corrective maintenance. Said inspection found long grass and weeds, old boards and debris, a potentially hazardous private well, and a storage shed that was being used by neighborhood children. These items were brought to your attention with a request to initiate the actions necessary to correct them. A reinspection on October 25, 1978 found little improvement in the property's condition. Therefore, the City must require you to; 1. Cut, rake, and maintain in an appearance consistant with the neighborhood the yard of this property. 2. Remove and dispose of at an approved location, e.g. sanitary landfill, all debris, old boards, and papers found deposited there. 3. Secure and cap the abandoned well in a manner approved by the Minnesota Department of Health. 4. Secure the storage shed against entry by unwanted people. A reinspection will be conducted on or about ten (10) days from the date of this letter to determine compliance. We are confident in your cooperation and.desire to make Fridley a better community to live in. If you have any questions on these items, please contact me at 571-3450. Sincerely, v e STE=4 J. OISON Environmental Officer SJO/mh ,oppr—gs COM�IISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 140 PAGE tJ9 Ms. Schnabel stated that in terms strictly of the variance requestp she had no strong inclination to deny it because of -the f t that the adjacent land immediately the f vacant e r t pr y . of X north is vacant and will always remain vacan � ecause it abuts the freeway. The closest affected lot then would be either t property immediately to the south or the property to the west across the alley. It had been established that there was more than -40 feet between the property t the bouth�and ,the proposed dwelling and the property to the west is currently large vacant piece of. land. Mr. Kemper I stated that he hadno fi ction to the variance. MOTION by Mr. Plemel., secondedb Mr. Kemper to recomend for approval to Council the request for variance pursupe'tto Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Codep to allow the construction of a 4-plex,the side yard set - *t 5450 5th Street N.E. by reducing back from a side'street of�,f corner lot from the required 35 feet to :R8 feet, noting that there was a descrepapL7 between the survey and the plat map. UP0 A VOICE VOTE, AIL,/bTING AYE, CHAIRWWAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UXANIMOUSLY< Na. Schnabel info the petitioner that this request would go to Council December 4., 1978, nd suggested that the adjacent property owners be there als�', 3. FJMUEST FORNCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER ft@�IA 2 J.",_ . J? 917-11 of the FRIDISY CITY CODEE.20 TE—EECH STREET E R.. WHICB 113-L Fridley., !St�lemalp seconded.by Ms. Gabel.to table Item 3 of the Agenda until, ann vork out the problems with the drainage and utility easements ated Gumwood Street. UPON A VOICE VOTEp _ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. LEY DE - ALIDW 4. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF��THE ��FR�3:�D�,�� CITY CO TO T N. E. BY -T&N tot A T.M 211� I rpmt EniTT �7ir-PTATJ f)l? A 'r FRN , -INCREASING —T!M-tOT-COVr�AG? FROM. THE MAS DIUM OF 25 PMUENX TU �O r-rultzlfx. - _-T_ Anthony.* = —Requesi by Nedegaard Construction Co.j Mc., Foss 'R6ad, St. Anthony.* &9 55418). MOTION by Mr. Kemper,, seconded by Mr. Barna to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIM40MAN SCMIABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC M'ARING OPEN k 9:05 P. M. COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 142 1 _ PAGE a , oo Mr. Kemper stated that if the petitioner could purchase part of Lot 4, he would not need a variance, and would like to know if that had been discussed by the petitioner and the owner of Lot'4. Ms. Schnabel reiterated that the City would not be in favor of building a dwelling on a vacant 40 foot lot. Mr. King stated that they did not plan on building on that lot because it would not look right to'have a mall house next to the 4-plex. Mr. Couture asked thatif the garage on Lots 1, 2, and 3 were moved over 10 feet, it would allow.for a'50 f t lot rather than a 40 foot lot, and would the City give a variance for a 50 foot t. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. Couture that he would have to get a lot -split from Air. Traczik, and would then ha a to keep the house far enough away from the lot line to meet the ordinance or get a,�variance at the same time they requested the lot -split. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Traczf� if he had considered purchasing part of Lot 4. Mr. Traczik stated that he was dot sure. Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Trac' might think it over because it would give him.. more room around his buildings and uld also eliminate a 40 foot non4buildable lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that this would o to Council and suggested that they all be there. Ms. Gabel asked that before the Council `meting, it should bac determined what was correct in terms of the survey. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Couture what he planned doing with the 40 foot lot. Mr. Couture stated that at the time he was p sing the 40 foot lot, he knew the person who owned the other three lots, and they' ere lout to back taxes, and he did not know about that until after he had pure ed the 40 foot lot. Mr. Kemper stated that they could act on this varix reached an agreement, they wouldn't have to use the MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna to close UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL CLOSED AT 8:55 P.X. and if the owners of the lots THE PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Gabel stated that she had no problem with the variance requ' t as such, but would like the square footage determined before the Council Meeting, and the �of owners would have to reach an agreement on their own, if they wished. Mr. Barna stated that the section map indicates 38.75 foot width, and 'z,-�at gives them enough lot, but the descreptancy should be noted. Ms. Schnabel stated that if the petitioner purchased the additional 40 feet, he would then have enough lot size to enable him to build an 8-plex, with a different design. Mr. Kemper stated that if the survey was correct, they were only off 3/10 of 1% of the requirement. APPEALS COMMISSION METING NO ER 14 1978 - PAGE 9 ` Ids. Schnabel aekea the petitioner to come forward. Mr. Bruce Nedegaard., 111 -45th Avenue N.E. tame forward. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 4626 2nd Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053 (0) Requiring a minimum of a 35 foot front yard setback. Section 205.053 (1B) Requiring lots to have a minimum of 7500 square feet if platted prior to December 29, 1955. Section 205.053 (48)(2) Where a house is built without an attached -garage on lots up to 60 feet wide, a minimun side lot requirement shall be necessary to 10 feet on one side and 13 feet on the other side so that there would be access to the rear yard for a possible detached garage at some future date. Section 205.054 (2A)(1) A one story single family dwelling unit of three bedrooms or less shall havea minimum of 1020 square feet of living area. Public purpose served by the above requirements are all related to serving the purpose of providing open space normal to suburban living. B. STATED HARDSHIP: We have need for the variances shown and have a hardship because the lot size is too small to build a house large enough to meet standard codes. The house that is now on the lot must be destroyed because it is unfit for living and is an eye sore to the existing neighbors. The new house will create a better neighborhood and increase the tax basis for'the.City. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: There -is presently a house on this lot. It is about 20 feet from the front property line and approximately 14 feet from the north lot line. The house is 16' x 45'. It is in very bad condition and should be removed from the site. The lot is 40' by 129'. The petitioner has requested several variances and would like to build a new home 40' by 24' and a detached garage 16' by 24°. The lot to the north is also a 40 foot lot and presently has a home 24' by 38' located 10 feet off the south line and is 25 feet from the front property line. The lot to the south is a 80 foot lot and has a house and garage. The driveway for this house .adjoins the petitioner's lot and the house is setback 3$ feet. APPEALS COMSSION MATING, NOVEMM 14, 1978 _ _ PAGE 10 If all the requested variances were approved. the new house would be 30 foot back (midway between the existing homes on'either side). It would be four feet closer to the north line and the same distance (10') from the south line. If the variances are approved, the petitioner should be requested to remove both strucutres within a reasonable length of time (60.days). The staff can see some merit in approving this request and it is quite different from -previous variance requests on 40 foot lots in that it is an interior lot (others were corner lots). We would also rid ourselves of the existing structures that presently exist on the lot. Ms. Schnabel noted that the Comissioners had a picture of the house presently on the lot' also an aerial photograph and a drawing of the proposed dwelling. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Nedegaard if he currently owned the lot' and the house on it. Mr. Nedegaard stated that hip had an option on the property, with the consideration that he be able to get a Building Permit. Mr. Nedegaard stated that he lives two houses away from the 40 foot lot, and he was building this as a spec house. Me. Schnabel asked if the house was presently occupied or vacant. Mr. Nedegaard stated that the lady who was living in the house was currently in a nursing home, and that she had rented the house. `Me house was in bad shape, with mice and rats. Yx. Nedegaard stated that the neighbors had approached him and asked that he build can the. lot. There was a well in the.back. yard for.rids to fall in and since he took the option, he had cleaned it up, and cut the grass and had secured the well and the back shed., for the protection of the kids. Ms. Schndbel stated that the house next door was 24 feet wide and he would like to build a house 24 feet gide, according.to the Staff Report. Mr. Nedegaard stated that Mrs. Ruth Evans, who owns the house next door, had a survey and her house was 25 feet wides, so the house next door would be one foot wider than what he intended to put on that lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated that he had discussed the proposed dwelling with Ms. Evans, and. she would be in favor of it., except he was planning to put the driveway on the other side of the house rather than next to her driveway, and she would rather have the proposed driveway next to here creating a double driveway situation, and. he had no qualms with this, because it was hard for her to get out of her dkiveway. Ms. Schnabel stated that if he did that, he would then go to 6 feet on the south side. Ms. Schnabel noted that the lot next door was an 80 foot lot, but it was visually deceiving. Mr. Nedegaard stated that he had measured it and it was.80 feet. APPEALS CO MISSION MEETING, NOVENM 14, 1978 - PAGE 11 Ms. Schnabel stated that the Nous& to the north is on a 40 foot lot and was recently constructed within about 15 years. Mr. Nedegaard'stated that the only reason he had asked for a front yard ,setback was to line things up. Ms. Schnabel asked that if Mr. Nedegaard flipped his planand put the driveway next to Ms. Evans driveway, and had two driveways side-by-side' would he then put his driveway right up to the lot line. Mr. Nedegaard stated that bb was not fond of that situation, but understood the problem Ms. Evans had, since her driveway drops off into that property. Her drive- way is on the lot line. Ms. Schnabel asked if he intended to put the garage on at the time he built the house. Mr. Nedegaard stated that he planned to do that. Ms. Gabel asked what kind of house he was planning to put on the lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated it would almost identical to the one next door, and he had not brought his house plans with him._ Ms. Schnabel asked if the neighbors had approached him regarding the lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated that when the for sale sign went up, the neighbors started calling him. Ms. Schnabel asked that regarding existing houses on 40 foot lots., if a house becomes 50% or more destroyed, it cannot be rebuilt on a 40 foot lot. - Mr. Moravetz stated that he had talked to Mr. Herrick, the City Attorney regarding this and Mr. Herrick stated that if the variances were granted, there should be a notation that there was a house existing on the lot, and that it was in very bad condition and was affecting the general aesthetics of the neighborhood, and in granting the variances, it would improve the overall neighborhood. Imo°. Herrick also stated that if the Commissioners had problems with granting this request, he would work with Staff and draft a report. This particular request did not fall into the category of someone randomly purchasing 40 foot lots to build houses for sale. Ms. Schnabel asked what the situation was in Hyde Park regarding 40 foot lots. Ms. Gabel stated that it seemed to her that if a house burned down or.something there, they were going to allow them to rebuild, but Ms. Gabel was not sure if anything was specifically written into the ordinance. Ms. Gabel looked up the ordinance and read it as follows: "Existing one family dwellings that do not conform to the conditions of this ordinance will be allowed to continue as a permitted use. In the event that the wain structure is either damaged or destroyed, the existing use will be allowed to rebuild to the setbacks of the existing building or to the allowed setbacks of the zone. Alterations or additions will be allowed when they improve the liveability provided they meet the required setbacks so stated in this chapter:' APPEALS. COIwMISSION DMT-ING, NOVFMER 14+ 197E - PAGE 12 s Ms. Schnabel stated that at the t%e the Commissioners were asked by the City to review whether or not the City would allow building on 40 foot lots, the Community Development Commission was pretty adamant about permitting building on 4o foot lots if there were no variances, other than lot square footage. Mr..Barna stated that what they said was that if you could build on a lot a salable house that would not have front,_rear or side yard setback variance, they would have no problem with it. Ms. Ruth Evans., 4528 - 2nd Street N.E. came forward and stated that when she purchased her home, it was a spec house. Mr. Moravetz stated that Ms. Evans house was built in November of 196+, and there were no variances as the code allowed it at that time. Ms. Schnabel asked Ms. Evans how she feels about what Mr. Nedegaard proposed to'do. Ms. Evans stated that she approved of everything except putting the house.6 feet from the lot line because her driveway is on a decline and could cause a problem when it was slippery in the winter. If Mr. Nedegaard reversed his plans so that the 10 feet would be on her south and his north and the two driveways would be together, that would work better for her. She had no objections to building on the lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated he would have no objections to doing that. Mr. Barna asked Ms. Evans if she would prefer to have the house built or would she prefer a vacant lot. Ms. Evans stated that she would prefer the house. Mr. Plemel asked Ms. Evans if she felt it would be too much crowding. Ms. Evans stated she had lived with the 40 foot lot situation for 17 years with no problems. Mx. Moravetz stated that the City had received no objections from anyone regarding this request. Mr. Kemper asked who the present owner of the house was. Ms. Evans stated that the house had always been rented. - Ms. Schnabel noted that there was a letter in the file signed by the owner, Gladys A. Switzer acknowledging that Nedegaard Construction was applying for the variances and that the present house would be removed for the construction of a new dwelling. Ms. Gabel asked what would happen if the variance requests were denied. Mr. Moravetz stated that it would probably be condemned, and at some time in the future.be removed and would then becomea vacant 40 foot lot. APPEALS COM USSION MEETING, NOVEMBER lea, 1978 _ PAGE 13 Mr. Barna asked if there was sewer and water on that lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated that the City inspectors had verified this. Mr. Moravetz concurred. NOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Me. Gabel to close the public.hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE' CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:44 P.M. Ax. Kemper noted that the existing house was 16 x 451. Mr. Kemper also noted that the alternatives would be to either grant the variances or deny the variances, in which case the house would eventually be condemned and it would apparently take soze time to do this, and they would then end up with a vacant interior 40 foot lot. Mr. Barna stated that another alternative would be that if the present owner could qualify for a low income improvement loan, they could improve the present home and live there or rent it out. Mr. Barna stated that he felt the first alternative, to grant the variances, was the most desirable. Ms. Gabel stated that she shared the concept of getting rid of the eyesore and the safety hazzards it poses, but comparing an interior to a corner lot, the 40 foot corner lot actually has more space because of boulevards than an interior 40 foot lot. Ms. Gabel stated that she had a problem with this because it required 6 variances to build on this lot and it had been determined in the City that 40 foot lots are too small. Ms. Schnabel stated that the other factor would be that if there were a series of 40 foot lots with structures it would be one situation, and here the situation would be that there was a. 80 foot lot on one side and a 40 foot lot on the other side. Ms. Schnabel stated that standing in front of the house, it was hard to visualize that the lot next door was actually a 80 foot lot. Because of the nature of the neighborhood, with the existing house on it, it doesn't look that crowded.. With a new house on it, it may change things, but all they are actually doing is going 4 feet wider on'the front of the house. Me. Gabel stated that granting these variances would be inconsistent with present policy that they should not be building on 40 foot lots. Mr. Plemel asked if action taken here would affect the court case. Mr. Moravetz stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Herrick, and Mr. Herrick had stated that he didn't see any problem with it since it would clean up.the neighborhood and eliminate the safety hazzards, and since there was a structure on it at present. Mr. Plemel stated that his.initial reaction was the same as Ms. Gabels' but it seems the situation was that a contractor was attempting =to work with the neighbors to i...� prove a bad situation, and granted there were 6 variances, but it seemed the best alternative. APPEALS COMMISSION MEMING, NOVEMBER 14, 1978 - -- PAGE 14 Ms. Gabel atated she would have no problem in granting a variance to 3anprove the present structure, but what they Idould be doing would be granting variances for neva construction, and that had been discussed at many meetings. Ms. Schnabel asked what the size of the lots to the north Caere. Mr. Nedegaard stated that .there were three other 40 foot lots facing 2nd Street. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Nedegaard if he had talked with the people on the 80 foot lot next door. Mr. Nedegaard stated that they were one of the first to call hien about.building on the 40 foot lot and they Frere weary much in favor of it. Mr. Moravetz reiterated that this would be the fourth house on a 40, foot lot in. this immediate area. Ms. Schnabel asked if Mr. Nedegaard had specific plans for a 960 square foot house, and what it would be like. Mr. Nedegaard stated the house would be almost identical to the one next door and would sell for about $60,000. Mr. Barna stated that he felt that Mr. Nedegaard would be building a nice -looking salable house which would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and an improvement over ghat was presently there which was not only visually an eyesore, but physically hazzardoue. Mr. Kemper -stated he would be in favor of -granting the variances because it would be getting rid of a health and safety problemp and not because it was on a 40 foot lot. His decision would probably be different if there were not house on the lot presently. Mr. ]Plemel asked Mr. Nedegaard that if the variances were approved when he planned on building and when he would remove the present structure. W. Nedegeard stated that building would depend on the weather, but would remove the structure as soon as possible for the safety of his own kids and the other kids on the block. Ms. Gabel stated that she would vote no so that it would go before City Council. Ms. Schnabel asked W. Nedegaard if he had tried any other house plans on this lot in order to avoid some of these variances. Mr. Nedegaard stated that the front yard setback could be left*'V but it would look fug and the City inspector agreed with him. And to build a 17 foot wide house in order to avoid the aide yard setbacks would not be too practical. Ms. Schnabel noted that this request was different from other requests to build on a 40 foot lot because there were other 40 foot lots in the neighborhood with existing homes. APPEALS CONMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1978 PAGE 15 a A Me. Gabel stated that in other instances, the neighbors did not on.the whole desire it., whereas in this case, the neighbors want it. Ms. Schnabel stated that in this instance there appears to be no other land available to increase the size of the lot. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna to recommend for approval to Council The -request for variances pursuant to,Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a dwelling on a 40 foot lot at 4526 2nd Street N.E. by reducing the required lot area from 7500 square feet to 5160 square feet reducing the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet, reducing the sideyards, one from the required 10 feet to 6 feet, the other from 13 feet to 10 feet, reducing the floor area from the required 1020 square feet to 960 square feet, and increasing the lot coverage from the maximum of 25 percent to 26 percent, with the stipulation that the present structure be removed with a reasonable length of time (60 days). Mr. Kemper stated he would like a letter from Mr. Herrick,. the City Attorney, defining the exceptions in this case and the differences from other requests to build on,a 40 foot lot. Ms. Gabel stated that she could see the need to remove the existing structure and realizes the advantages to the neighborhood of.building a new structure, but was still concerned about allowing building on a 40 foot lot. Mr. Barna stated that he would be more comfortable with a smaller, less expensive house. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Imo. BMNA, NIR. KEMPERs M. -PLEM VOTING ASE, MS. GABEL VOTING NAY, CHAIRWOMAN SCMMEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. Nedegaard that one.of the reasons Ms. Gabel voted against the variances, was to make sure the request would go to Council for final approval, since a 40 foot lot was.involved. Ms. Schnabel stated that she would like to indicate to Council the following reasons for approving this request; There is an existing health and safety.problem with the existing structure on this property and the Commissioners feel it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood that the structure be removed as soon as possible. Once it was removed, it appears to this Commission that it would be a viable plan to put a new structure on that lot. The new structure would be compatible with other existing homes and lots in the neighborhood and in this particular case the neighbor- hood seems to be favorably inclined to have a new structure built on that lot. The Commissioners feel that the. City Attorney should be requested to write a._letter defining the special circumstances surrounding this variance request, and how those circumstances differ from an un -improved interior 40 foot lot. It has also been determined that there was no adjacent available land which could be purchased to increase the size of this lot. The lot was presently served by City sewer and water. Ms. Gabel stated that being aware of the legal problems the City was presently faced with concerning 40 foot lots, and not having them resolved, is another reason for some of her concern. Mr. Kemper stated that his vote for approval was more a vote for reclamation of a bad situation rather than tacit approval for building on a 40 foot lot. APPEALS COMISSION MEETING WTMSER 14 127_8 - PAGE 16 5. FINAL RECOMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING: Me. Gchnabel suggested that because the Planning Commission Meeting on the 22nd would probably be a short one because of Thanksgiving' and because the only items discussed at that meeting would be to receive minutes, she would like to meet at another time to discuss the zoning changes. The Commissioners agreed to meet on Tuesday' November 28 at 7:30. Chairwoman Schnabel declared the November l4, 1978 Appeals Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: Kathy SheIt6n,, Recording Secretary PLAMUNG COMMISSION MEETING, NOVFMER 22, 1978 •_ PAGE 4 RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 14L 1978: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Appeals Commission Minutes of November 14, 1978. Mr. Peterson stated that regarding Mr. Bruce Nedegaard's request to build on a 40 foot lot, he felt that by granting it they would be opening themselves up to a lot of other situations such as if a person had a non -conforming use on a piece of property and it burned down, he could come back and say that the precedent was that they allowed it to be built back to its original status. Ms. Schnabel stated that she had questioned the same thing and also had mentioned the Hyde Park area. Ms. Schnabel showed the Commissioners a picture and an aerial phcto of the lot in question. Ms. Schnabel explained that the house presently on the lot was uninhabitable and if the variance request was not granted, the City would coly-lemn the house and it would be removed. Ms. Schnabel pointed out that the aerial photo shows several other 40 foot lots on the same street, so it was felt that building on _this lot would be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel also pointed out that the house immediately north was a very nice hone on a 40 foot lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that as they discussed the request, it became apparent that the neighbors were vel much in favor of Mr. Nedegaard building on the 40 foot lot, and since there were other homes on 40 foot lots on the same street, it seemed reasonable to grant the request, rather than deny the request and let the City condemn the house, have it torn down, which would take some time, and then be left with an empty 40 foot lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that Clyde Morevetz had talked with Mr. Herrick, the City Attorney, and Mr. Herrick felt it would not jeopardize the law suit because the law suit was concerned with a person who had brought the lots tax forfeit, this lot was a full priced piece of pro- perty, there was the question of a corner 40 foot lot as opposed to an interior ZC foot lot, and the neighbors in this case were very much in favor of a new dwelling on this 40 foot lot. The neighbors approached Mr. Nedegaard and asked him to do this. Mr. Nedegaard lives down the street from the lot in question. Because of these facts, the circumstances were quite different from the law suit case, and Mr. Herrick would be willing to write out a legal interpretation for the City Council. Mr. Harris stated that he could see that this would be good for the neighborhood and could understand why the neighbors wanted it, but was concerned about setting a pre- cedent they would be sorry for later. Mr. Peterson stated that he had noted that Pat Gabel expressed the same concerns in terms of her vote. Ms. Schnabel stated she did too, in fact felt that all the Commissioners did, but by the same token, found it difficult to come up with reasons to deny it with the neighbors there requesting it. Ms. Schnabel noted that Mr. Kemper had stated that if this had been a vacant lot, he probably never would have voted for it, but because it did have a house on it that was currently being used until just recently, he felt more comfortable going along with the request, Mr. Harris asked what the difference was between this lot and another lot that's vacant, other than this lot has a house on it. PLANNING COMMISSION NEETINGp NOVEMHER 222 1978 PAGE � . Air. Petersen stated that according to that definition, the family in a three bedroom house with a mother and father and five children would be in violation of the ordinance. How would they handle that situation? Ms. Schnabel stated that the problem arose through the definition of "Occupancy Limit". There are some houses in Fridley which contain large numbers of people who are unrelated to each other and at least one of these has caused a lot of problems for the City, because of the complaints about this house. As an attempt to get some kind of definition that would give the City some legal basis with which to handle this kind of problem,, the Appeals Commission wanted a definition of "Occupancy Limit" which would give the City legal recourse in this type of situation. Mr. Peterson stated that he did not like the idea of "Occupancy Limit" because there are situations where people have a three or four bedroom house with enough children and the mother and father to put them over the legal limit, and did not like to put something in the ordinance that would cause a problem for them. Ms. Schnabel stated that she understood that the situation was that if there were no complaints about them, there would be no problam. Mr. Oquist stated that the situation could arise where a neighbor wouldn't like the family and there you have a complaint, it could cause all kinds of problems with an ordinance like this. Mr. Peterson stated that he thought Minneapolis had a non -related ordinance that has been effective, because basically in that situation, you are running a boarding house. A five bedroom house with 10 unrelated people is basically a boarding house. . Mr. Harris suggested that they get a copy of Minneapolis's ordinance and review it. Mr. Harris also stated that there was a Nuisance Ordinance which should cover a situation like that, that the Zoning Ordinance should not be considered a cure-all. Ms. Schnabel stated that the first inclination of the Appeals'Commission was to throw -out the difinition of "Family" and not even get into "Occupancy Limit", but the Maintenance Code has a definition of "Family"in it which reads: A group of not more than 5 persons, who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption living together as a single housekeeping unit." Mr. Peterson stated that since it was already in the Maintenance Code, they should not have to have a definition in the Zoning Code. Ms.Schnabel stated that maybe when the Planning Commission discussed this, they would decide to throw it out, which was the Appeals Commissions' first inclinations but as they talked about it, they weren't sure if there were other reasons the definition was needed. Mr. Harris stated that he had talked with the City Attorney, and the City Attorney would receive copies of their discussions regarding the proposed changes, and he could interject, during their deliberations, his legal opinions regarding the changes. Mr. Harris stated he would like to think about it and discuss it at a later time, unless they had a specific proposal. Ms. Schnabel stated that the proposal was to have a legal opinion on the definitions of "Family" and "Occupancy Limit", and would like to know if it would be enforceable. Ms. Schnabel stated she would get the Minneapolis ordinance regarding Boardinghouses and they could discuss it at the Planning Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AXE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. N:iIFIG COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 22,1978 - PAGE 5 Ms. Schnabel stated that looking at it from another angle, if this house was for sale and somebody bought it and decided to improve it, the City could do nothing about that. Mr. Harris stated that that could be done, essentially building a house within a. house, if the present house was that bad. Mr. Harris stated that personally he felt granting the variance would be a good thing, but was uneasy about the consequences,, maybe not with the present court case, but a year from now. Ms. Schnabel stated that they may be faced with these saw type of situations in Hyde Park. Mr. Harris stated that what they were doing then was continuing the use of sub -standard lots, which they had decided not to do. Ms. Schnabel stated that they had said they would not permit new construction on vacant sub -standard lots, but in Hyde -Park they had said they would permit existing use of sub -standard lots to continue. Ms. Schnabel also stated that Mr. Nedegaard had in- dicated that this 40 foot lot cost over $12,000 and because of this she felt that be- cause costs are sky -rocketing so much, they may have to allow this kind of thing in order to continue to provide housing. Mr. Oquist questioned whether they should be concerned about providing additional housing when Fridley was developed. Mr. Harris suggested they table this item for three months, until February, while they study it, and get a judgement from the present court case and know where they are going with the problem. Because everything is frozen anyway,, Mr. Nedcgaard ;could not be able to do anything with it -until Spring. . Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 7, the 4th paragraph frcm the top should read: "Mr. Couture asked that if the garage on Lot 5 were moved south 10 feet, it would allow for a 50 foot lot rather than a 40 iot lot, and wo du -the City give a variance for a 50 foot lot! Ms. Schnabel stated that on Page 7, the 5th paragraph from the top, the words "from Mr. Traczik" should be deleted. Ms. Schnabel stated that on Page 13, the 4th paragraph from the bottom, it should be 8 feet not 4 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to recommendto Council that Na•. Nedegas�*s request to build on the 40 foot lot at 4626 2nd Street N.E., be tabled for 90 days (December, January and February). UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. PETERSON, MR. LANGENFELD, MR. STORLA, M. OQUIST VOTM AYE, AND MS. SCHNABEL VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 5 TO 1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,NOVENBER 2, 1978 - PAGE 6 5. RECEIVE ENVIRONnmiAL QUALITY COMMISSION MI RMS: OCTOBER 171 1978: KION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Peterson., to receive the October 17, 1978, Environmental Quality Commission minutes. Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 2, letters from Ms. Johnson and Ms. Schauls should have been included as part of the record and were not.included with the minutes. Mr. Langenfeld stated that there was a meeting at City Han on Monday night which was attended by PAA, MACy. Metro Council, City of Fridley Council, and Marsha -Bennett among others. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the question of whether or not there was going to be airport expansion was discussed, and also to incorporate under the MnDOT program the discrepancies noted by their Commission and others. Mr. Langenfeld stag that it looked like the airport �,,cpansion idea was in the making, and there was talk of a Master Plan with the approa,--k of expanding piece by piece, for example, first put in some lights, then weather instrument flying, with each thing being a major change. Mr. Langenfeld stated that there were indications of political involvement also. Iz. Langenfeld stated that their Commission would be meeting with New Brighton EQC and would be providing some kind of summary. Mr. Langenfeld stated that regarding Ms. Sporre's comments on page 7, 6th paragraph from the bottom, Ms. Sporre meant th&t if the ordinance could be enforced, she would be willing to spend the time. Mr. Langenfeld noted that they had a new member on his Commission, MarvinHora. UPON A VOICE NOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION -CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 23 1978: MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to receive the October 23., 1978, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Peterson thought they could get common growl for snow- zdbiling. Yz. Peterson stated they had leased the Sears Property last year and were requesting it again this year, but hadn't heard yet. Mr. Langenfeld stated that he hoped it wouldn't be Locke Park. Mr. Peterson did not think that would happens because of the problems with the wild life. Mr. Harris asked what could be done to divide the outside rinks to separate the hockey playing from the ice skaters. Mr. Peterson stated that most of the rinks are already separated and most of the designated hockey rinks are not used very much by the formal hockey program, but are used by neighborhood kids. I It , LAW OFFICES WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L.TALLE VIRGIL C. HERRICK ROBERT MUNNS WILLIAM K. GOODRICH November 24, 1978 DOUGLAS E. KLINT November TIMOTHY E.CASHIN Mr. Clyde Moravetz City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, 11innesota 55432 Dear �1r. Moravetz: !, -� �- 4 6G 316 EAST MAIN STREET ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303 421-5413 6279 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55432 571-3550 This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation regarding the request for a variance to build a residence on a 40 -foot lot at 4526 Second Street Northeast. I also acknowledge receipt of that portion of the Appeals Commission meeting minutes of November 14, 1978 that relate to that subject. As you and the members of the Appeals Commission know, the granting of a variance is discretionary with the Cit,. :it should be done only where there are unique circumstances that iiapose a hardst:ip upon tae owners of the property. This hardship must be one that was not self-imposed or assumed when the buyer acquired the property. In this particular circumstance, it appears that there is a dilapidated house on a 40 -foot lot. This, of course, is a non -conforming use unuzr our existing ordinance. CenerallT speaking, non --conforming uses are not to be encouraged. The intent in allowing a non -conforming use is to permit the owner to use the propercv for its useful life and then to have it removed. In this particular case, it would appear that the City's options w=ould be two: 1. To declare the building unfit for habitation and hazardous and have it removed. 2. To grant the request for variance and allow the construction of a new building. The marits of the two altetnatives should be considered by the Appeals Commission and the Council before'maki.ng the final decision. Mr. Clyde Moravetz - 2 - November 24, 1978 I believe that the granting of the request might well create some problem for the City as far as existing and future requests for construction on 40 -foot parcels. If it is granted, the City would have to take a position that the circumstances in this case were different: 1) because there was already a house on the lot, which created a substantially greater hardship on the owner than in those situations where the lot was vacant; 2) that the granting of the variance was compatible with the neighborhood and would not have an adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent properties or the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding residential area. In order to argue successfully the latter point, it would be necessary to have facts and figures that would differentiate the neighborhood in this situation from neighborhoods where other requests have been made. I hope that the above answers your inquiry. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Virgil C. Herrick VCH : kao C ADDRESS APPLICANT 5558 5th St. Wallace Daley 4618 3rd St. Russel Cook 5980 5th St. Dean.Ferguson 5820 3rd St. Eberhart Company BOARD OF APPEALS APPEALS COMISSION May 23, 1962 REASONS, COMMENTS ACTION LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION Withdrawn 5,691 sq. ft.. Petitioner withdrew request because Highway Department was retaining , an easement, and as these lots were taken for 1.694' cannot state exact lot• size. ----------------------- ------------------------- September 12, 1962 Approved- 40' x 130.5' May 26, 1965 October 6, 1965 October 13, 1965 6595 Arthur St. Howard Dumphy December 8, 1965 Stipulated setting the September 17, 1962 Denied proposed house 23'x34' 7' from North line ------------------------------------------------- Approved 41.5' x 130.55' Tear down existing house June 21, 1965 Approved and start new house by December 21, 1965. (Building Permit issued 10/29/65) wanted to see old house removed. --- --------------- L----------�----------...-.�-----.� - Tabled Objection from neighbor Withdrawn 40' x 130' Lot sold to adjacent owner --------------------------------------------------- Approved 40' x 129' Subj. of approval of January 4, 1966 Denied Building Board of old house they want to move on the lot. ------------------------------------------------ 4020 Main St. Robert Wilson September 4, 1968 Approved 101.5 x 135' Petitioner requested that this variance be granted so lie could get lot split approval also, for two building sites 50.9' x 135' Vote was 3-1 for approval because original structure destroyed by fire. REASONS, COMMENTS _ STIPULATIONS said this was second time for this request for this lot, and it was just too small to build on. Approved plot plan fcr new house, but asked that it be reversed on the lot. Building Board said the house was too old and was condemned in Columbia Heights. Neighbors objected at this meeting also. September 16, 1968 Approved Concurred with Appeal: Commission and also granted lot split. ,• Ufa � � REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS,COMMENTS ACTION BOARD OF APPEALS jADDRESS•'': APPLICANT APPEALS COMMISSION '1885 3rd St. Frank Dirtz June 25,1969 Should be lot split May 26, 1970 !11800 231 St., C.L. McCline July 13, 1971• i . Sept. 2,1969 appr. ;800 3rd St. C.L. McCline July 13, 1971 ':',694,Tridley St. G. Craig Willey April 23, 197; -1- REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS,COMMENTS ACTION LOTSIZESTIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION STIPULATIONS Approve 35' X 128' None Should be lot split to make lot larger Sept. 2,1969 appr. lot split Approve 45.12'X128' Unbuildable w/o variance No vision obs. No traffic hazard problem Applicant has for some time No objections from maintained lot neighbors Asset to neighborhood June 19 1970 Approve Deny 401X128' Too substantial variances req. to build July 19,'71 Deny Concur with Bd. of granted would set precedent Appeals Great deviation from code Neighbors afraid of blind corner, want codes followed structures w/b too close together Deny 40'X128' Same as above July 19, 1971 Deny Concur with Bd. of ------------------------------------- Appeals Deny 40'X135' Petn. #5-1974 .=--••May , 1974 Deny Concur with Bd. of Bring value of property down Appeals Detract from other homes Letter of no object Wildlife area; add to park ion recd. from (b property Would set a strong Object to plans for house precedent Denied re opposition by neighbors, lot size number of variances requested (5) Hardship.stated: w/o variances the lot is unbuildable -1- ADDRESS APPLICANT 4885 3rd St. Frank Dirtz N BOARD OF APPEALS/ APPEALS COMMISSION April 23, 1974 February 10,176 April 27,1976 April 26,1977 REASONS, COMENTS ACTION LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION Approve 45.121X128' Houses similar in the area May 6,'74 Approve Approved variances once before but didn't build No obj. from neighbors ---------------------------------------------------- Table 40'X128' Comm. wants opinion from other commissions on building s on 4.0' lots. Approve some variances Neighbor: Would not blend with -- - neighborhood May 3, 1976 Approve Might be safety hazard Approved: lot area'variance lot width variance side yard variance side yard from side st. Deny: lot coverage setback for att. garage opening onto side street of corner lot Hardship: Unbuildable w/o # variances May 16,1977 Deny Deny 401X135' Similar request as in 1974 (4 variances requested instead of 5) Petition 7-1977 in opposition (same reasons as one in 1974) A.C. commented that should the vacation of easement come about, they would look at the variances requested in a new light -2- o REASONS,COM�,NTS � STIPULATIONS Applic. didn't build in 170 re money Concur with Bd. Contingent upon increasing 40' lot to approx. 45' thru lot split Concur; re over- crowding in res. neighborhood, lack of rear yd. space disturb elements d house to west. would prevent any, future use of esmt. for park -3- REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS, CO =NTS APPLICANT APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION LOT, SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION STIPULATIONS Feb.27,'78 Gordon Hedlund Dec.13,1977 Continued 40'X128' Petition; neighbors did not Concur No showing of want a house on that lot hardship ,Hardship: unbuildable w/o var. Jan.24,1978 Deny Comments: maintain consistency Need to provde some open spaces Reduce crowding in terms of fire House not compatible with ex. homes in area Set a bad precedent If garage w/b desired, would require addl. 2 variances No hardship demonstrated (petitioner aware when lots purchased of problems) House w/b build too close to corner Objections by neighbors Gordon Hedlund Dec. 13,1977 Continued 39'X129 Applicant stated he understood Feb.27,1978 at time of t.f.f. sale that the Concur No demonstrated lot was unbuildable hardship No neighbors at meeting Hardship: unbuildable w/o var. Jan.24,1978 Deny Comments: Maintain consistency. Need to provide some open space Reduce crowding in terms of fire May be lack of compatibility with exist. homes in area. Would set a bad precedent Hardship not established Potential of traffic problems because D/W may be accessed from Main St. -3- t __ - Item #1 February 13, 1979 Item #4, November 14, 1978 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT x;1;2.6 2nd Street N. E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053 (4A) Requiring a minimum of a 35 foot front yard setback. Section 205.053 (1B) Requiring lots to have a minimum of 7500 square feet if platted prior to December 29, 1955. Section 205.053 (0)(2) Where a house is built without an attached garage on lots up to 60 feet wide, a minimun side lot requirement shall be necessary to 10 feet on one side and 13 feet on the other side so that there would be access to the rear yard for a possible detached garage at some future date. Section 205.054 (2A)(1) A one story single family dwelling unit of three bedrooms or less shall have a minimum of 1020 square feet of living area. Public purpose served by the above requirements are all related to serving the purpose of providing open space normal to suburban living. B. STATED HARDSHIP: We have need for the variances shown and have a hardship because the lot size is too small to build a house large enough to meet standard codes. The house that is now on the lot must be destroyed because it is unfit for living and is an eye sore to the existing neighbors. The new house will create a better neighborhood and increase the tax basis for the City. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: There is presently a house on this lot. It is about 20 feet from the front property line and approximately 14 feet from the north lot line. The house is 16' x 45'. It is in very bad condition and should be removed from the site. The lot is 40' by 129'. The petitioner has requested several variances and would like to build a new home 40' by 24' and a detached garage 16' by 24'. The lot to the north is also a 40 foot lot and presently has a home 24' by 38' located 10 feet off the south line and is 25 feet from the front property line. The lot to the south is a 80 foot lot and has a house and garage. The driveway for this house adjoins the petitioner's lot and the house is setback 35 feet. If all the requested variances were approved, the new house would be 30 foot back (midway between the existing homes on -either side). It would be four feet closer to the north line and the same distance (10') from the south line. If the variances are approved, the petitioner should be requested to remove both strucutres within a reasonable length of time (60 days). The staff can see some merit in approving this request and it is quite Administrative Staff Report 4626 2nd Street N.E. Page 2 different from -previous variance requests on 40 foot lots in that it is an interior lot (others were corner lots). We would also rid ourselves of the existing structures that presently exist on the lot. 11 I 3 iREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1978 PAGE 3 ` RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22 1978: I 1. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1978: A. KIRYLO CZIHRAY, 7879-81 FIRWOOD WAY: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request to reduce the required rear yard setback on a double frontage lot from the required 35 feet to 14 feet to allow construction of a garage for a double bungalow at 7879-81 Firwood Way N.E. Mr. Sobiech stated, in this area, variances of this nature have been granted before in order to provide garages and additional off-street parking. He stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval with the stipulation that the driveway remain a shared driveway with the property to the south. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission with the stipulation that the driveway is shared with the property to the south. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. RICHARD THACZIK, 5450 5TH STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a side yard variance to reduce the required 35 foot side yard setback, from a side street j of a corner lot, to 28 feet in order to build a four-plex apartment. Mr. Sobiech stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of this request. He pointed out, however, there was discussion by the Commission if the petitioner had any interest in acquiring additional property to the south. Mr. Thaczik, the petitioner, stated he is in the process of purchasing the 40 foot lot to the south. He stated he could then put in two more units and would only need a variance of 3 feet, instead of 7 feet. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated this would probably be a different proposal than what the Appeals Commission heard since the petitioner is purchasing the property to the south. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated the Appeals Commission heard the request to allow a variance from the required 35 foot setback to 28 feet. The petitioner is now proposing only a three foot variance, but adding two more units. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the petitioner, at the time of the Appeals Commission meeting, intended to provide for only a four-plex, however, with the purchase of the other property, he is actually reducing the amount of the variance, as far as the setback is concerned. Mr. Herrick didn't feel there was a legal requirement to send this item back to the Appeals Commission, but if the Council wished, they could do so. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and approve this request for variance. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. C. NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 4526 ?.ND STREET: ( Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for several I variances on a 40 foot lot involving reduction of the lot area; reduction of the front yard setback and the side yard setbacks; reducing the floor area; and increasing the lot coverage. Mr. Sobiech stated discussion by the Appeals Commission was favorable and they recommended approval. He explained what now exists on this site is a substandard house which is in very bad condition. He stated the Commission's reason for recommending approval was that there Is an existing health and safety problem and would be in the best interests 4. KZZ 4 REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1978 PAGE 4 i of the neighborhood to remove the structure as soon as possible and that the new structure would be compatible with other homes and lots in the neighborhood. He stated there was some concern since there was discussion in the past, whether a 40 foot lot was a buildable site. The Planning Commission recommended this matter be tabled for 90 days. Mr. Herrick stated he didn't make any comments to the Appeals Commission as he wasn't aware of the request, but was made aware of the situation a day or two before his memo was written. Mr. Herrick felt the City has a question of policy to resolve whether or not they will allow the owner to rebuild if they have non -conforming uses of this type that are getting to the end of their economical usefulness. Mr. Herrick felt, however, if Council was to act favorably on this request, findings and reason should be set forth, in writing, and put into the record. He pointed out there already is an existing house on the site and several other houses in the area on 40 foot lots and that residents expressed the fact they didn't believe the variance would deteriorate the neighborhood. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he is not prepared at this point to say this request is different from others that were denied in the past, and therefore, would be agreeable to tabling it for 90 days. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table this request for 90 days during which time the Appeals Commission is to review it again in light of the City Attorney's memo and comments that the City would have to come up with a statement as to what way and what degree this request is different from those that were denied. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mr. Herrick felt the staff should carefully review the other requests they have had over the last 10 years to compare them with this particular one. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voted, aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 22, 1978. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1978: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the minutes of the Charter Commission Meeting of October 17, 1978. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1978: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Cable Television Commission Meeting of November 15, 1978. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF INTERCEPTOR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT #67 WITH ETROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FOR 1979: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the Interceptor Maintenance Agreement #67 with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for 1979. Seconded .by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JOINT USE RENTAL AGREEMENT 0191 WITH METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FOR 1979: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the Joint Use Rental Agreement #191 with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for 1979. Seconded by f 40 MEMO TO FILE: Substandard Lots 4526 2nd Street NE DATE: December 11, 1978 SUBJECT: Information to Pass on to Appeals Commission From Council Meeting of December 4, 1978 1) The City Council concurred in tabling for 90 days and directed that this item be brought back to the Appeals Commission, together a copy of the City Attorney's letter. 2) The Council directed that the synopsis of previous requests for construction on 40' lots be passed on to the Appeals Commission for their consideration, specifically, to see how the present request differs from other requests. 3) The Council directed that if the request is approved, a concise statement be prepared indicating why this request is different. Items mentioned at the Council meeting were as follows: a) House presently existing on property b) Houses on other 40' lots in the immediate neighborhood c) No objections noted from the neighborhood indicating a potential devaluation of existing homes. d) Removal of blight and general upgrading of neighborhood e) The lot is an interior lot 4) The Appeals Commission should be advised that proper remodeling could bring the existing house into compliance with the code and therefore, a certificate of occupancy could be issued. Staff did not want to lead the Commission and Council to believe that the house would be torn down in any case. The house as it stands is not a safety hazard, it just cannot be occupied until certain items are brought into code compliance. Staff however, felt that if possible, it would be more appropriate to remove and reconstruct a new dwelling. RNSIjm Ll J s e CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L. TALLE VIRGIL C. HERRICK ROBERT MUNNS WILLIAM ?..GOODRICH DOUGLAS E. KLINT TIMOTHY E. CASHIN LAW OFi1cES WEAVER. TALLE & HERRI'CK November 24, 1978 Mr. Clyde iforavetz City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr. Moravetz: 316 EAST MAIN STREET ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303 421-8413 6279 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55432 571-3650 This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation regarding the request for a variance to build a residence on a 40 -foot lot at 4526 Second Street Northeast. I also acknowledge receipt of that portion of the Appeals Commission meeting minutes of November 14, 1978 that relate to that subject. As you and the members of the Appeals Commission know, the granting of a variance is discretionary with the City. It should be done only where there are unique circumstances that impose a hardship upon the owners of the property. This hardship must be one that was not self-imposed or assumed when the buyer acquired the property. In this particular circumstance, it appears that there is a dilapidated house on a 40 -foot lot. This, of course, is a non -conforming use under our existing ordinance. Generally speaking, non -conforming uses are not to be encouraged. The intent in allowing a non -conforming use is to permit the owner to use the property for its useful life and then to have it removed. In this particular case, it would appear -that the City's options would be two: 1. To declare the building unfit for habitation and hazardous and have it removed. 2. To grant the request for variance and allow the construction of a new building. The merits of the two alternatives should be considered by the Appeals.Commission and the Council before making the final decision. 4K Mr. Clyde Moravetz - 2 - November 24, 147E I believe that the granting of the request might well create some problem for the City as far as existing and future requests for construction on 40 -foot parcels. If it is granted, the City would have to take a position that the circumstances in this case were different: 1) because there was already a house on the lot, which created a substantially greater hardship on the owner than in those situations where the lot was vacant; 2) that the granting of the variance was compatible with the neighborhood and would not have an adverse effect on the property values of the adjacent properties or the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding residential area. In order to argue successfully the latter point, it would be necessary to have facts and figures that would differentiate the neighborhood in this situation from neighborhoods where other requests have been made. I hope that the above answers your inquiry. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Virgil C. Herrick VCH:kao b� ADDRESS APPLICANT 5558 5th Si. Wallace Daley ? 4618 3rd St. Russel Cook 5980 5th St. Dean Ferguson i • 5820 3rd St. Eberhart Company 6595 Arthur St. Howard Dumphy 0 BOARD OF APPEALS t REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS, COMMENTS APPEALS COMISSION ACTION LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION STIPULATIONS May 23,1962 Withdrawn 5,691 sq. #t. Petitioner withdrew request because Highway Department was retaining an easement, and as these • lots were taken for I.694' cannot state exact lot size. September 12, 1962 Approved 40' x 130.51 Stipulated setting the September 17, 1962 Denied said this was second r proposed house 23'x34' time for this request 7' from North line for this lot, and it was just too small to -.------��_ .� �--- ----------------- build on. May 26, 1965 Appioved 41.5' x 130.55' Tear down existing house June 21, 1965 Approved Approved plot plan fcr and start new house by new house, but asked. December 21, 1965. that it be reversed (Building Permit issued on the lot. 10/29/65) wanted to see ---old-house-removed. Moldhouseremoved.October October6, 1965 Tabled Objection from neighbor October 13, 1965 Withdrawn 40' x 130' Lot sold to adjacent owner December 8, 1965 ------______.--------------------------------- Approved 40' x 129' Subj. of approval of Januar 4 1966 Denied Y . Building Board said g Building Board of old the house was too old house they want to and was condemned in move on the lot. Columbia Heights. 4020 Main St. Robert Wilson September 4, 1968 Approved 101.5 x 135' Petitioner requested that this variance be granted so he could get lot split approval also, for two building sites 50.9' x 135' Vote was 3-1 for approval because original structure destroyed by fire. Neighbors objected at this meeting also. September 16, 1968 Approved Concurred with Appeals Commission and also granted lot split. REASONS,COMMENTS STIPULATIONS Should be lot split to make lot larger Sept. 2,1969 appy. lot split No vision obs. problem No objections from neighbors Concur with Bd. of Appeals Concur with Bd. of Appeals Concur with Bd. of Appeals Letter of no object ion recd. from W Would set a strong precedent _r_— ZZ 1 BOARD OF APPEALS REASONS, COMMENTS ADDRESSY•.: APPLICANT APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION :4885.3rd.St. Frank Dirt2 June 25,1969 Approve 35' X 1281. None May 26, 1970 Approve 45.12'X128' Unbuildable w/o variance t No traffic hazard Applicant has for some time {. maintained lot t`t Asset to neighborhood June 1, 1970 Approve f 14800,23 St. C.L. McCline July 13, 1971• Deny 40'X128' Too substantial'variances req. to build July 19,'71 Deny u:.. If granted would set precedent Great deviation from code Neighbors afraid of blind corner, want codes followed structures w/b too close together ------------ 4800.3rd St. C.L. McCline July 13, 1971 Deny 401X128' Same as above July 19, 1971 Deny 5694 Fridley St. G. Craig Willey April 23', 1974 Deny 40'X135' Petn. #5-1974 --%,.May $, 1974 Deny " `: '• •4 •{: Bring g value of Property down . : Detract from other homes Wildlife area; add to park property 16 Object to plans for house Denied re opposition by neighbors, lot size number of variances requested (5) Hardship stated: w/o variances the lot is unbuildable REASONS,COMMENTS STIPULATIONS Should be lot split to make lot larger Sept. 2,1969 appy. lot split No vision obs. problem No objections from neighbors Concur with Bd. of Appeals Concur with Bd. of Appeals Concur with Bd. of Appeals Letter of no object ion recd. from W Would set a strong precedent _r_— ZZ BOARD OF APPEALS/ ADDRESS APPLICANT APPEALS COMMISS1014 ACTION i REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS,COMMENTS LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION STIPULATIONS Approve 45.121X128' .Houses similar in the area May 6,'74 Approve Applic. didn't Approved variances once before build in '70 but didn't build re money No obj. from neighbors Concur with Bd. Table 401X128' Comm. wants opinion from other commissions on building on 40' lots. Approve some variances Neighbor: Would not blend with ---_ --- -•- neighborhood 3 1976 Might be safety hazard y ' Approve Approved: lot area•variance lot width variance side yard variance side yard from side st. Deny: lot coverage % setback for att. garage opening onto side street of corner lot Hardship: Unbuildable w/o # variances May 16,1977 Deny Deny 401X135' Similar request as in 1974 (4 variances requested instead of 5) Petition 7-1977 in opposition (same reasons as one in 1974) A.C. commented that should the vacation of easement come about, they would look at the variances requested in a new light -2- Contingent upon increasing 401 lot to approx. 45' thru lot split Concur; re over- crowding in res. neighborhood, lack of rear yd. space disturb elements of house to west. would prevent any- future nyfuture use of esmt. for park REASONS, COMMENTS REASONS, COMMENTS 'ADDRESS APPLICANT APPEALS COMMISSION :ACTION LOT SIZE STIPULATIONS COUNCIL ACTION STIPULATIONS t' Feb.27,178 4800;:ird Si. Gordon Hedlund Dee.13,1977 Continued 401X128' Petition; neighbors did not Concur No showing of want a house on that lot hardship ' 'iA;'rH::S"' ..; "' ;'.`.•, ,Hardship: unbuildable w/o var. � .. •_r•.�•;f>:":••; ,' ; Jan.24 ,197$ Deny* Comments: maintain consistency ..;:rt'rx;=.';f '. • Need to provde some open spaces `;�'" '• Reduce crowding in terms of fire House not compatible with ex. homes in area Sera bad precedent !_. • ,:• + ,;; , . _ If garage w/b desired, would require addl. 2 variances ' No hardship demonstrated (petitioner aware when lots purchased of problems) s; •i:;, :, House w/b build too close to corner Objections by neighbors 4687:,Main St. Gordon Hedlund Dec. 13,1977 Continued 391X129 Applicant stated he understood Feb.27,1978 i.:: Concur at time of t.f.f. sale that the No demonstrated lot was unbuildable hardship No neighbors at meeting Hardship: unbuildable w/o var. Jan.24,1978Deay Comments: Maintain consistency. ' Need to provide some open space Reduce crowding in terms of fire May be lack of compatibility with exist. homes in area. ' Would set a bad precedent Hardship not established Potential of traffic problems because D/W may be accessed from Main St. 8/4/78 JM � .41 11111111IR 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRI®LEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 December 13, 1978 CITY COUNCIL. ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. 3903 Foss Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 0 Ort December 4, 1978 , the Fridley City Council tabled your� request for a variance t 26 2nd with the stiPuIations lister beIow. �ee:E N. E. for 90 days, at which time ' go back to the Appeals Commission (3-13-79) F1ea,se rev"o-vi the I?otcd st"tpul-atio'ns, Sign the r4117.t'awent bflow' and r;:-Lurn one cop,; t:o the i;i ty of Fridley. If you have any questions re-gardi ng the above act s on, pl easo ;a11 the Com,unity Develop,,:,^nt Office ai: 571-3450. ,li.D/de ati pl!lations: Ca cur wi th a ti on t L. 'n . APPEALS COMMISSION MF.XTIVU, llEVEMtiEal ?-o, 12(0 - J. 2. TABLED: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW THE ENCLOSURE OF A LOADING DOCK AT 7740 BEECH STREET N.E. WHICH WILL REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO THREE FEET. TRequest by Viking Engineering and Development, Inc., 7740 Beech Street N.E., Fridley, Mn. 55+32) This item should remain tabled until the Vacation Request (SAV #78-01+) and the City Council agrees to let petitioner encroach on the easement. t Ms. Schnabel stated it was her understanding that this item would remain tabled for some time. 3. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING: MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to continue the discussion of the proposed changes in Chapter 205. Zoning until the next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Schnabel stated they should 'receive the memo regarding substandard lots dated December 111 1978. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to receive the memo regarding substandard lots dated December 11, 1978. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAMIOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated that most of this was self-explanatory and felt the analysis would be helpful to have in the future. The letter from Mr. Herrick was received at the last meeting, so it was only the memo that pointed up some of the different things that resulted from our recommendation of approval on the 40 foot lot on 2nd Street N.E. Mr. Barna asked if that item would be comming back to the Appeals Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated she was not sure, and that the Planning Commission had recommended to Council that they table it for 90 days and Council agreed. Mr. Barna stated he would re -act differently with the additional information that the house was re-vampable Ms. Schnabel stated that the City feels the house could be rehabilitated and the City would not condemn it, and therefore feels it was not necessary to tear it down and build a new one. Mr. Clark stated he personally felt it would be better for the neighborhood to tear it down and build a new home of a larger size, which was what the petitioner wanted to do. APPEALS CO1,1MISSION MEETING DECEMBER 26, 1978 ��r. PAGE 6 Ms. Schnabel stated they were slightly led off course. At the meeting, Mr. Moravetz stated he had talked to Mr. Herrick about the legal problems of their approving any- thing on this piece of property., and Mr. Moravetz implied that Mr. Herrick did not feel that their approving.those particular variances would in any way hamper the Court Case the City was involved in. Mr. Moravetz°s information was based on a telephone conversation. Several days lester.,.Mr. Moravetz received the letter from Mr. Herrick., stating 180 degrees difference. Ms. Schnabel stated she had made the statement that she felt that members of the Appeals Commission would have voted differently if they had had a copy of Mr. Herricks letter at the time. Mr. Kemper stated that if there were new circumstances or new evidence., and the Council wanted them to look at it again, maybe they should. The Commissioners reviewed the synopsis that was attached to the memo. Ms. Schnabel noted that the ones that were denied had objections from neighbors, whereas in this particular case, the neighbors were in favor of it. Mr. Barna stated that part of the reason they decided to go along with it was because of the response of the neighbors and also because there was already a house on the lot. Ms. Schnabel noted that the neighbors had approached the contractor and asked him to do something about it. Mr. Clark stated that the heating, plumbing and wiring was to code and it was a matter of re -enforcing the structure. Mr. Kemper stated they were told the heating was inadequate., and also that the wiring was bad. Mr. Kemper stated that a large part of his decision was the fact that the house had to be taken down. If that was not true, he might have made a different decision. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt there were several mis-leading statements made by Staff at the meeting. They were told that the house was not habitable and should be con- demned and also they were told that approval of the request would not jeopardize the court case. Those were two different statements than what they were getting now and if they had this information at the meeting, they probably would have voted differently. Ms. Schnabel stated that they would like Council to know that they have received two conflicting pieces of information and if Council wishes them to re -consider the request they should direct them to re -consider it, otherwise Council could handle it themselves when the 90 day are up, with the outlook that there was additional information they did not have. Mr. Barna stated he would have liked to have seen a smaller home on that lot., and with the new information, he would perfer to see them re -vamp the existing house. This would also make a lower priced house available in the area. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to inform the City Council that because of additional and conflicting information regarding the variance requests for 4526 2nd Street N.E., the Appeals Commission would be willing to reconsider the request, or the City Council should make a final decision itself at the end of the 90 day period. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING2DECEMEER 261 1978 - __ PAGE 7 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to adjourn the December 26, 1978, meeting of the Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted., Kathy Shdlton,, Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 16, 1-979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman. Schnabel called the January 16, 1979, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Kemper Members Absent: Mr. Barna, Mr. Plemel Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner 1. APPROVE APPEALS CONNVIISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 26, 1978: YOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the December 26� 1.978, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCENABEL DECLARED -TEE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. TABLED: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO A11M THE PTICT OS ME OP A LOADING DOCK AT 774REMIT gT13F.F.T hl E. - WHICH WILL REDUCE , REQUIRED STDF YARD SFT��;ACK, FROM 25 -PpyT TO 3 p' .T, (P�equest by Viking Engineering and Development, Inc., 77+0 Beech Street N.E., Fridley, NIN. 55432). MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper to remove this item from the table. UPONA VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms..Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL TOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7740 Beech Street N.E. A.. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT Section 205.1.34 'Rear yard setback of 25 feet. The public purpose served by the required 25 feet is to provide rear yard space to be kept open to eliminate congestion and provide open space between adjoining structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP This variance will eliminate the present safety hazards of loading our equipment in the snow and other adverse conditions. We want to enclose this dock primarily for safety. APPEALS COPSaSSIbN WETING J!zUARY 16 1 j PAGE 2 C. ADMINISTRATiVE STAFF REVIEW The structure, if constructed at 3 feet off the property line, would have to be one hour fire resistive construction and could not have any openings in the wall adjacent to the lot line.' This is the requirement of the State Building Code. The building would have to be 10 or more feet from the lot line if not constructed to the 1 hour specifications. The proposed structure would be located within a drainage and utility easement of which the petitioner has applied for vacation, therefore any recommendation the Commission makes would have to be contingent upon the success of the vacation request. In as much as the vacation request is not within your jurisdiction, you dre not required to Ariake a recommendation on it, however, you may be interested to know that two of the City's public utility companies have expressed in letter form that they do have existing utilities within the area the petitioner has requested vacation of. The City Council will consider the variance in their decision -on the vacation -'request. If the Commission recommends approval on this request, it should stipulate that the approval was subject to the vacation being approved, and that the structure comply with the Building Code. Ms. Schnabel stated the request was to reduce the required 25 foot rear yard setback to 3 feet. M:'. Boardman stated this would go along with the vacation request. Presently the building was located 25 feet off of the rear lot line. That 25 feet was easement line that the City had. Gumwood Street was 50 feet and was vacated and this section was retained as a utility.easement. Staff had contacted all of the utility companies concerned. The only easement they want to retain would be the easterly 10 feet of the westerly 27 feet. The dock would be right at the edge of the easement line, so it wouldn't be over any of the easements. The reason they want to cover the dock was that in the winter, they had a problem with snow and ice on the dock which presented a hazzardous condition. They would like to put a metal cover over the dock. This would be strictly an add-on which would just cover the existing dock. Since Staff has received statements from the utility companies, they would not have any problem with this request. Ms, Schnabel stated the record should show Viking Engineering did not have a representative at the meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that when the request for vacation and easements came before the Planning Commission, Mr. E. Johnson of Viking Engineering was present and stressed that this was a loading dock, but wasn't one that the trucks would drive.into. The trucks would drive up to the opening and the materials to be loaded currently sit on the dock and with the snow and ice on the platform, it,was'a safety hazzard to the employees. By enclosing the dock, they would hope to prevent accidents happening to the employees. There was also a dip, it goes down, so the trucks were going down which also created a problem. APPEALs commissIoN MEETING, 3ANUARY 16, 1979-- — - - _PAGE Mr. Boardman stated they had a.cut-out where the trucks drive down add the platform or loading dock was at ground level. They would not be raising it. They did have a drainage problem, but that problem was built in with the construction of.the building. Ms. Gabel asked if the dip was for drainage or for the trucks. Mr. Boardman stated it was for the trucks. Ms. Schnabel stated there was a note in the Staff Review to "see attached checklist" which should be a part of any approval. Mr. Boardman.stated he had not seen that. He suggested they hold off on that and if the City Council wanted to make it a condition, they could. He could not see where there would be that much, because it was,a new building, built about a year ago. Ms. Schnabel stated there were a few things in there she would be reluctant to make a stipulation for. Mr. Kemper asked if the shed complied with the Building Code, Mr. Boardman stated he imagined it would. Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners the plans. He explained that there were actually two buildings, two ownerships, split down the middle, with two docks, one on each side. There was a cement aprox., and the shed would cover the whole 73 x 23 foot area. Ms. Schnabel stated the shed would then -cover both docks, and the other company would share in the cost. She was surprised the other owner was not a part of the petition. Mr. Boardman stated the dock covers the whole back of the building and was within 3 feet of the property line. A dock can go over the top of an easement, but when they cover it, it would be considered a structure. There was only one utility under the .dock, and that wasthetelephone service line. If that would have to be torn up, it. would be at the expense of Viking Engineering. Ms. Schnabel askedp if they use the loading area on the north side of the building, do they bring the trucks around from the other side or property? Mr. Boardman stated there was a truck loading area on both sides and there was no alley. They don't drive through, they back up to the dock. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, 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;20 P.M. Mr. Kemper and Ms. Gabel stated they had no objections. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 16, 1979 PAGE it MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to recommend to Council approval of the request for variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code to allow the enclosure of a loading dock at 77h0 Beech Street N.E., which will reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 3 feet, with the stipulation that the vacation be approved and that the structure comply with the Building Code. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Appeals Commission would like to alert the City Council to the "Exterior Improvements Checklist" with regards to the parking lots curbing and refuse container screening. 3. CONTINUED: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING: M. Gabel asked if Mr. Boardman had found anything out about time limits on building permits. W. Boardman stated he had not, but would look into it. The Commissioners concurred with the following recommended changes: 20.081 USES PERMITTED Page 36 #1-B: Delete "one -family dwelling", and insert "single-family dwelling". Page 36 #2-C: Because of this item, the Commissioners would like the definition of "Guest Room" retained in the "Definitions" section of the document. 205.083 LOT REQI.JnM'IENTS AND SETBACKS Page.38 #3 - Lot Coverage: Delete and insert "30�". Page 38 #B-3: M. Schnabel stated this statement allowed a 2 -family dwelling to be built without a garage. In R-1, the Appeals Commission had recommended that any lot of 9.000 square feet of minimum area should have a minimum of a single -stall garage. Ms. Gabel stated they should be consistent. Mr. Boardman stated they did not have a garage requirement for a three-family unit. Mr. Boardman stated he had reservations about requiring garages. The Community Development Commission had come taut in favor of not having garage requirements. Ms. Schnabel stated the current code required a 1 1/2 stall garage for each dwelling unit. Mr. Boardman stated the Metropolitan Council and the League of Minnesota Municipalities were leaning towards the elimination of garage requirements.. and also excessive lot requirements. Ms. Schnabel stated that as a community, they were pretty well developed and up to this time, they have required garages. By requiring a garage., they would be protecting those residents who are already here and have garages, from the unsightly pollution of new structures coming in without garages if there was a storage problem. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETIDTG, JANUARY 16, 1979 PAGE 5 Mr.*Boardman.stated that most people would put up a garage, and by not requiring garages, itwould leave people the option to put the garage on at the.time'of construction, or at a later time when they could afford it. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Ms. Schnabel. Mr. Kemper.stated he was in favor of not changing the existing code and agreed with Ms. Schnabel also. Ms. Schnabel stated they ,should continue. -the discussion when the reached the parking requirements on page 39• Page 38 JB -3: Delete the word "future"., and change the word "for" to the word "to". Page 38 #B-5: Delete the first"three", this was a typing error. Page 38 #C=1&2: Combine #1 and # to make one paragraph, and delete the words "as follows". Page 38 #B-5: Delete "three feet" and insert "five feet". 205.084 Building Requirements Page 39 #1 -Height: Insert at end "from finished grade level". Page 39 f2 -Minimum Floor Area: Ms. Schnabel referred back to the recommendation they had made for minimum floor area in R-1 which reads as follows: "A lot that was 9,000 square feet or more must. have 1020 square feet on the first floor including an attached garage, and a lot that was less than 9,000 square feet must have 768 square feet on the first floor exclusive of attached garage or accessory buildings". Ms, Schnabel stated the existing code for minimum floor area in R-2 reads as follaws: "In a two -Family dwelling, the minimum floor area shall be 1400 square feet total, the minimum living area of any unit shall be 650 square feet, In no case shall the first floor area be less than 768 square feet". The Commissioners recommended that the existing code for minimum floor area in R-2 be retained. The Commissioners recommended that the definition they had developed for minimum floor area in.R-1 be changed to read as follows: "A lot that was 9„000 square feet or more must have 1020 square feet on the first floor which could include an attached garage, and a lot that was less than 9,000 square feet mush have 7-M square feet on the first floor exclusive of attached garage or accessory buildings". .205.085 Parking Requirements Page 39: Change '%" to "#2” and '12" to "#3" and insert a new "#1" which would read: "A 1 1/2 stall garage shall be required for each dwelling unit". 205.094 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Page 43 +: Ms. Schnabel and Ms. Gabel questioned whether they had any apartment units that were at that lower level, with half above and half below groun€j with more than 2 bedrooms. APPEALS COMMISSION IZETING, JANUARY 16, 1979 �PAGE 6 Mr. Boardman stated that would be difficult because they would have.to have a 4 x 4 foot window.space to push out incase of fire. .Mr. Boardman also stated they could probably delete this item. The Commissioners decided to have Mr. Boardman look into it further and make a decision. 205.101 Uses Permitted Page 44 #1-A: Ms. Schnabel asked if they wanted to require tie downs for mobile homes with certain specifications and also if they would want to require some type of public safety building in a mobile home park development. Mr. Boardman stated he did not foresee any expansion in mobile home parks, and the one we already have does have a building. He would check the State law regarding tie downs. Mr. Kemper stated he did not feel it would be practical to require a building. 205.133 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Page 54 #D: Mr. Boardman stated that Community Development had recommended that the "50 feet" be changed to "30 feet". The Appeals Commissioners recommended that it be left at "50 feet". 205-143 Lot RealLrements and Setbacks Page 57 #D: Delete "20 feet" and insert "50 feet". 205.173 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Page 66 - top paragraph: Delete "24 feet" and insert"35 feet". 205.181 Uses Permitted Page 6j #3 Delete "E. Automobile reduction yard" and also delete "U. Junk yard". Page 67 #3 -AA: Insert Linseed oil. 205.183 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Page 69 #n -1 -At Change to read "Permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces, shall not be closer to any street line than 100 feet, or to any alley line than 40 feet or to the boundary line of any other district than 35 feet and any residential dis- trict closer than 50 feet. " Deleted "40 feet" and inserted "50 feet". 205.192 Special District Regulations Page 70 — first paragraph: This paragraph should include a minimum acreage requirement. Mr. Boardman will insert this. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 16 1979 - _ PAGE 7 22008 Landscaping Page 80 #2-A,B,C: Ms. Gabel questioned why this section had been deleted. This section referred to.site improvements in Hyde Park, Mr. Boardman stated they had replaced this with a more extensive requirement in maintenance. Ms. Gabel stated she felt the wording in'Maintenance was betters but would not like to see any significant changes made to the -Hyde Park area. Ms. Schnabel asked if the requirements in S-1 were geared towards development of land that was currently vacant, or could this be used by existing areas such as Hyde Park. Mr. Boardman stated it could be used by an area such as Hyde Park. Ms. Schnabel asked who then would be responsible.for developing,a land use component.,. circulation component, population component, etc. Mr. Boardman stated that in a situation like Hyde Park, 'the City.would take that responsibility. Ms. Gabel stated she felt itrde Park was a special district, but didn't seem to fit the rest of these regulations very well and suggested it could cause problems if they include Hyde Park in this section. Ms. Schnabel suggested they add a section to the code for existing developed areas. Mr. Boardman agreed, and suggested they insert it after 205.193 205.1.93 Special District for Townhouse Development Page 76: Mr. Boardman stated that after discussing this section with the City Manager and Community Development, it was decided that this section would be re -located to the section behind the R Districts and the heading would be changed to "Additional Restrict- ions for Towhhouse Development. It would placed after the R-3 section. Mr. Boardman stated they would be adding a new section entitled "O Districts". They have a lot of "overlay" districts such as the flood plain and shore land management regulations, critical areas, etc. They would be setting up a regulation for overlays. This would be at the end of the document, so they would be able to make changes with- out changing numbers throughout the book. The Commissioners agreed. Mr.,Boardman asked if the Commissioners had any problems regarding the way the document was layed out. Ms. Schnabel stated they preferred the way the existing code was laved out because everything was in a district by.itself, and people didn't have to go through many different areas to find what they wanted. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JAimARY 16, 1979 - PAGE 8 Mr. Boardman stated the existing document was not really layed out that way. There was a section in the back.with additional restrictions for all districts. Ms. Schnabel stated they did not like the way the first part of the proposed document was layed out. The existing document was easier for the public and the Commissioners to read. Also, they felt that the way the proposed document was layed out., there was a chance to miss things. -- Mr. Boardman stated he did not see the advantage of repeating things. such as parking restrictions for each district] environmental restrictions for each district. etc. He felt that would add a lot of bulk to the document, up to 4 or 5 pages per section. Mr. Boardman stated that when the public comes in., they would not give them the entire zoning code., but only a copy of the district involved and they would attach a copy of the additional restrictions concerned with that district. The proposed document would have the same restrictions, but they would not be repeated so often. Also, the pro- posed document was more of an operating document and would be easier for Staff. The existing document was difficult for Staff to interpret especially in regards to parking requireimenit s . Mr. Kemper stated he was in favor of keeping the bulk down., and suggested that an index would help. Mr. Boardman stated they planned on having an index. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Ms. Schnabel) and preferred the way the existing doeument was laved out. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms,. Schnabel stated that pages 3 and 4 of the December 4; 1978 City Council minutes refer to the Nedegaard Construction Company at 4526 2�d Street. There was some con- fusion as to what they should be doing regarding that request. On page 4 there was a motion to table the request for 90 days during which time the Appeals Commission was to review it again in light of the City Council's memo and comments that the City would have to come up with a statement as to what way and to what degree this request was different from thosethathad been denied. Ms. Schnabel stated that at another time they would be instructed to re -consider this request. Ms. Gabel stated she understood from the January meetingo they would send it back before the 90 days were up. Mr. Boardman stated that Staff had understood it would remain tabled for 90 days and then come back to Appeals. W. Kemper asked if there would be'a new announcement of the public hearing. - Ms. Schnabel stated she felt they.shuuld. Mr. Boardman stated that legally they would not be required.to make another announcement. Ms. Schnabel stated that in all fairness an announcement should go out. Mr. Boardman agreed. APPEALS COMMISSION IdETINGj JANUARY 16, 1979 A Page 9 • Mr. Kemper stated that when they to review this item, the Appeals Commission should have copies of all correspondencep minutes and letters regarding this item at the meeting, and as part of the agenda. Ms. Schnabel noted that on page 4, third paragraph from the top, stated that the Planning Commission recommended the item be tabled for 90 days. In the next para- graph, Mr. Herrick stated he didn't make any comments to the Appeals Commission as he was not aware of the request, but was made aware of the situation a day or two before his memo was written. Mr. Herricks memo was written on November 244 1978. The hearing before the Appeals Commission was November !4.v 1978. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper to adjourn the.January_16.,' 1979 meeting of the Appeals'Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL BOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING -ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: Kathy Shelton� Recording Secretary 6. opi -. 101 EVELVA 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 .ti TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers_at_6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 13,. 19-79—_Lyin regard to the following: At the request of the Cfty Council and the Plannt.n,9 Commission, the'Appeals Commission'v ll=rehear 4 request for variances to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 4526 2nd Street N,E, P-grsugnt to Chatpdr 205 of the Fridley Zoning Code, the Y-rlarices needed are: The required lot area oe`reduced from 7500 square feet to 5160 square feet, the front yard setback be reduced from the required 35 feet to 30 " feet, reduce the side yard setbacks, one from'the required 10 feet to 6 feet, the other from the required 12 feet to 10 feet, reduce the requl�red floor area from 1020 square feet to gb0'square feet, and increase the maximum lot coverage from 25 per cent to 26 per cent. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN. APPEALS COMMISSION ti CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 13, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the'February 13,,1979...Appeals Commission Meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Abmbers Present: Mr. Plemel, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna ' Members Absent: Mr. Kemper Others Present: Darrell Clark, Community Development Administrator 1. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 16, 1979: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to approve the January 16, 1979 Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCRNABEL DECLARED THE NOTION CARRSED UNANIMOUSLY: 2. REHEARING ON REA.UEST FOR VARIANCES TO.ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFA NEW_DWELLTNG AT. _5�+ 26 2ND STREET N.E. PURSUANT ' TO, CHAPTER 205 OF THS FRIDLEY CITY CODE., , `TBE VARIANCES _ DED ARE: THE REQUIRED LOT AREA BE REDUCED FROM 7500 SQUARE FEET TO 0 SQUARE FEET, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BE REDUCED FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEETTO 30 FEET REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS 0111E FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO FEET, THE OTHER FROM THE REQUIRED 12 FEET TO 10 -FEET. AND REDUCE THE RE- QUIRED FINISHED FLOOR -AREA FRO14 1020 SQUARE FEET to 9 O SQUARE'FEET THE,INCREASE T MAXIMUM'LOT COVERAGE FROM 25 -PER CENT TO 2b PER CEINT. tRequest by Nedegaard. Construction Company, Inc., 3903 Foss Road, St.- Anthony, .1n.; 55+18), MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs Barna, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE'PUBLIC'REARING OPEN AT 7:4o P.M. Ms. Schnabel stated that this item had been handled at the Appeals Commission meeting of November 14., 1978. 'At that meeting there was a public hearing and a motion was made to the City Council to approve. the requests as stated. The minutes of that ,meeting reflect the reasons.'the Commissioners had at that time fox approving the; variances. The week following that meeting, the item went before the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission took the action of recommending to Council that this item be tabled for 90 days.. When the item reached the Council, onDec°ember 41F 1978, the Council agreed to table it -for 90 days, which would be December' January and February. The Council had further discus,41on regarding the Appeals Commission actions and the request and on January 8, 1979, the Council requested this item be' returned to.the Board of Appeals to be reeonsidered,,'which is the reason this item is before us now. The Appeals Commission had discussed this'item'several times because of things that were brought to their attention along the way. The two most impCF taut things to come to their attention were a statement_ m�ide on Decezaber 12`, 1978 by Mr. Darrell. Clark that the building currently on the lot in question was not'considered APPEALS COMUSSION MEETINGP FEBRUARY 13s 1979 _____ _ _ - PAGE 2 condemnable by the City, in fact it was considered rehabitable., which was contrary to information given to the Commission on November 14, 1978. The second item that came to the Commission's attention was a letter dated November 24, 1978 from the City Attorney, Virgil Herrick., to Clyde Moravitz of the Staff, which contradicted information given to the Commission at the November 14th meeting. Each of the Commissioners had received a copy of the letter. The.item in question was particu- larly the effect that approval.of this request would have, on the legal suit that the City was currently involved in. That letter was forwarded to the Commission in December and included with it was a file on other 40 foot lots that have had requests for variances from 1962 to the present. Mr. Clark stated the Commissioners had also received a memo from Council and item 3 of the memo lists five items the Council would like the Commissioners to address in either the denial or approval of the request. Ms. Schnabel stated that those five items were reasons they used.for approval in the first place. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt the minutes from the November 14th meeting were quite clear and quoted from page 15 of the minutes. Ms. Schnabel stated, for the benefit of the audience, that the main thing that had come to the Board's attention was that they felt they were mislead in several instances. The first area in which they were mislead they felt was by the Staff person at the November 14th meeting, where they were told that the house currently on the lot should be condemned., that the City wanted it condemned even if nothing were done with it. That it was in very bad shape, unhabitable, and should be torn down. The second thing was that they were also concerned about the court case the City was involved in. The Staff person stated that he had talked to the City Attorney and the City Attorney had said that if the variances were granted, there should be a notation that there was a house currently on the lot and that it was in very bad condition and was effecting the general aesthetics of the neighborhood., and in granting the variances, it would improve the over-all neighborhood. Since that time they had received a letter from'the City Attorney which contradicted that statement. That statement was made orally to the Staff. Several,days later., the City Attorney wrote a letter and in writing he changed, the Commissioners felt substantially, his opinion. Mr. Nedegaard stated that the day he and four Staff people had gone through the house., the mutual feeling was that the house should be torn down. That was the reason he had come this far with the request and also because at the Council meeting the Mayor had told him that he felt it would be approved, but not until the court case was taken care of. Ms. Schnabel quoted from the letter from Nr. Herrick, dated November 24., 1978. She read the second page of the letter. Ms. Schnabel stated that this led the Commissioners to believe that granting approval of this request ,could cause problems with the court case. However, there were still the basic facts remaining. This was a lot that had a structure on it currently: the case in litigation had no structure on it but was a*vacant lot. This'was an interior lot, the lot in litigation was a'corner lot. This lot, the neighbors supported the :improvement, the lot in litigation., the neighbors did not support. Therefore, Ms. 'Schnabel -stated she felt there were sub- stantial differences. Mr. Clark stated he agreed they should tear the house down and start from scratch, but -it wasn't in such condition, that it couldn't be repaired. It cuuld be repaired and lived in. For the nieghborhood, it would be better to have the house further back from the street and be one of more equal value to the ones next door. The house next door was on a 40 foot lot of comparable size. { APPEALS COM41SSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 13, 1979 - PAGE 3 Ms.*Schnabel stated the owner of the house next door on the 40 foot lot, Ms. Evans,, was at the November.14th meeting and spoke in favor of the new structure being put on the lot, and the only thing she asked was that the plan be flopped, because of the driveway. Ms. Gabel asked if the house were upgraded, and added, -','On to, could it be made com- parable to other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Clark stated if they did that., they were almost back where they started from, because a variance would be necessary if they added more than 50% to the house. Once you add more than 50% of the.current value of the house to it, it Vrould have to go through the same process to be upgraded. Also, it was closer to the street than it should be. It would probably be more economical to take it'down. Mr. Barna stated that the existing house was 720 square feet with basement. He stated that 400 square foot houses without basements were running about $20,000 to $25,000. So that would put this house at about the $30,000 bracket. The existing house repaired and upgraded would probably run about $35,000 to $40,000, which would still leave it within the reach of a low'and medium income person. The new house on that lot would not be within the reach of the low and medium income people which, he sees as basically more desirable to have it a lower income housing. As he stated at the November 14th meeting' he would be more comfortable with a smaller house than that larger house, because that larger house would run $50,000 or better, and that would not include the expense of tearing down the existing house and foundation. Mr. Nedegaard stated it would cost almost as much to upgrade the existing house. Mr. Barna disagreed and stated there was not room in the house to put $15,000. Mr. Clark stated, they had re-habed a house on 60th and Main. and it had cost almost $10,000 for a new bathroom, re -wiring and new trim. Part of the problem with the structure on 2nd Street was that it was only 16 feet wide and it would "be difficult to lay out a floor plan in that space. Mr. Plemel asked if the house was occupied at present. W. Nedegaard stated the lady who had rented it was in a rest home, and the house was vacant. Mr. Plemel asked Mr. Nedegaard if he.planned to acquire it himself. Mr. Nedegaard stated he did. Mr. Plemel quoted from Mr. Herricks letter that the variances should be granted only where there are unique circumstances that impose a hardship upon the owners of .tie property. This hardship must be one that was not self-imposed or assumed when the buyer acquired the property. Mr. Plemel stated he would feel different if the owner wanted ,to tear the old house down and build a new one. Mr. Clark stated that the.owner,had co-signed the request. Ms. Gabel stated that Mr. Nedegand's purchase of the lot was contingent upon the variances bed.ng granted. APPEALS COMOSSION MEETING,- FEBRUARY - 132 1979 PAGE 4 W. Barns, stated he would feel different if the present owner was contracting with Mr. Nedegaard. But as it stands., Mr. Nedegaard was buying on specand that puts it in a different ball game.. It would*make.it a self -assumed hardship even though - it was in his neighborhood and he wanted to upgrade it. He still.felt it could be rehabilitated by a young person who wanted to buy an inexpensive home. Mr. Clark stated that the other lots had been brought tax forfeit., which was different from this case. Alsop that person was told prior to purchasing those lots that they' were not buildable., but he brought them knowing that. In this case.. the petitioner would not be out anything if this was denied. All he wants to do is upgradehis neighborhood. Mr. Plemel stated that not one neighbor had spoke against the project and apparently Mr. Nedegaard had a good relationship with the neighbors and their complete confidence. Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Nedegaard had,stated that the neighbors had come to him when the house was put up for sale.. and had asked him to buy the lot and put UP a new structure.Ms. Schnabel stated she felt she couldsee both sides and felt like she was on the horns of a dilemma. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Nedegaard if he could see his way clear to do some re-hab on the house. Mr. Nedegaard stated he would have to look at it -again. The only other time he had looked at it was with Mr. Clark and at that time.. didn't feel it could be re-habed. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Ms. Schnabelj, that it was a dilemma. Ms. Gabel stated that the problem she had was that as long as there was a structure on it; it was one situation' but as soon as they tear down the structure., and they have a vacant lotp it would become a W foot lot problem. Mr. Clark asked what would happen if the house was not there. Ms. Gabel stated it would then be a '40 foot lot and the City had pretty well established a policy regarding 40 foot lotsp and the policy did not distinguish between interior or corner lots. W. Barna stated he had changed his viewpoint regarding 40 foot lots after seeing what was happening in Minneapolis., where the City was re-habing house on 40 foot lots and they were standing vacant. People were not buying houses on 40 foot lots. He could not see a viable 40 foot lot in an urban area as being the sensible thing to do. Ms. Schnabel asked how much work would have to be done on the house to bring it to code, Mr. Clark stated that the electricaly heating and plumbing was not all that bad. Structurally., the floor joists were over spanned: the rafters were over spanned) and it was hard to tell what was in the walls. It was hard to know until they'started tearing it apart. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING.,FEBRUARY 13s 1979 - PAGE 5 Mr. Barna stated that when he drove by the house, he had noted that the roof did ..not sag. Mr. Nedegaard.stated.there was no insulation in'the house and none of the windows met code. He did not feel it could be fixed for 50% of the value of the house. Ms. Gabel asked if he would need a variance if he exceeded the 50%. Mr. Clark stated he would. The 50% referred to the cost of the house, the assessed valuation. Ms. Schnabel asked if the setback was 20 feet from the street. Mr. Barna stated it was. Ms. Gabel started that in terms of the court case, once the structure was torn down it becomes an'identical situation to the other 40 foot lots. Mr. Clark stated that this petitioner was in a different situation. Ms. Gabel stated he was not really in a different situation because he was assuming his own problems, where the present owner would not be. Ms. Gabel stated she thought the present owner would have a stronger case than Mr. Nedegaard would have. Mr. Plemel noted that they could liken Mr. Nedegaard to someone gust taking care of the paperwork in order to facilatate matters. -The.present owner would realize quite a bit of money if she sold the property to Mr. Nedegaard. Mr. Plemel asked how long the present owner had owned the property. Mr. Clark stated he thought it was over 20 years. Mr. Plemel asked if she had it built. Mr. Nedegaard stated it was moved in and that it was a chicken coop and all that was added on was the back portch. Ms. Gabel stated that if she knew where they -were with the court case, she would be willing to say go ahead with it. Mr. Plemel asked if they should table it again. Ms. Schnabel stated that at this point it was unclear when the City would go to court, and it would be really unfair to the petitioner to do that. Ms. Gabel stated she felt it would be better to tear it down and that the Commission hada responsibility to the people who live there. Mr. Nedegaard stated he had met recently with the neighbors and suggested they stay home tonight, but they were concerned and would fight leaving the ekisting home there. The existing -structure was a Hazard to the neighborhood. APPEALS COMM'CSSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1979 PAGE 6 Ms. Schnabel suggested to Mr. Nedegaard''that he encourage the neighbors to come to the Council meeting when this item is removed from the table, so that Council could hear what they have to say. Mr. Plemel stated that he felt they had covered the subject pretty well the first time and saw no reason to change their minds. Ms. Schnabel stated she was concered about the same thing Ms. Gabel had mentioned, that once the present structure was torn down, they would be dealing with a vacant 40 foot lot. Mr. Plemel stated they should also look at it that they should have some compassion for the lady trying to sell it and recoup her investment. Ms. Gabel stated that if the house was just a chicken coop to begin with, her invest- ment could not have been too great. If someone were to buy it,and re-hab it she would be able to recoup her investment at a profit. Mr. Plemel asked if someone could buy it and live in it as it was. Mr. Clark, stated that would be difficult to prevent unless it was lived in on a rental basis, in which case it would come under the Housing Code and they could step in. Ms. Schnabel stated that in looking back over previous requests for 40 foot lots, the only one similar was one in May of 1965. The lot size was 41.5 x 130. They tore down the existing house and built" a new one. This request was granted and approved by both the Appeals Board and the City Council. It was a corner lot. Mr. Clark noted that was a tornado damaged house. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M. Yx. Plemel stated that after going it to it more thoroughly, he understands it.better but hasn't changed his mind from his original vote. Ms. Schnabel stated that if they concur with their previous recommendation they should send to the Council some additional information, specifically how this request differs from.other requests in the past. Ms. Gabel reiterated that she did not know what the legal ramifications would be once the house was torn down and it became a vacant 40 foot lot. As far as Yx. Nedegaard tearing doem the.house and putting up another one, she had no problem, but was unsure of the legalities once the house was torn down. Ms. Schusbel stated they had not received that kind of information either because the courts had not dealt with that problem or because if the courts had, they hadn't been informed on it. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 13., 1979 - PAGE 7 Mr. Barna stated he felt that as a Board they were charged with the responsibility to determine whether they felt that in any particular instance there was a situation where the code should be overridden to the benefit of a resident or a person wishing to build in the City who was hampered by a situation in the code. He could not see where they could say tear down a building that was maybe reparable and build one that would cost more and take it out of the reach of the people who could afford the house"as it exists. Mr. Barna stated he knows of many people who would buy it and rehabilitate it. Ms. Schnabel stated that considering the amount of work the house needed and the size of the lot, they would be maybe interested in a house that would not require so much work. Mr. Barna stated the main point might be the lot size. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt the house should be torn down and replaced.. but was con- cerned about starting a precedent of building on interior 40 foot lots. There could be the distinction that they would permit construction on 40 foot lots in the interior of blocks if there was an existing structure there which was considered non-rehabitable. So consequently' they would permit existing structures to be removed and replaced by a dwelling because the problems of rehabing what was there would be so great, and that would be a separate issue from a currently vacant 40 foot lot. The bottom line was that the people in that neighborhood were used to a structure on that lot and to put a new structure on the lot would not create a problem visually.. as it would if the lot were currently vacant. Mr. Plemel stated that having heard nothing at this meeting to change his thinking, he would make a motion. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend'to Council approval of the request for variances to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 4526 2nd Street NE. Pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code' the variances needed are: The required lot area be reduced from 7500 square feet to 5160 square feet, the front yard setback be reduced from the required 35 feet to 30 feet, reduce the side yard setbacks, one from the required 10 feet to 6 feet., the other from the required 12 feet to 10 feet, and reduce the required finished floor area from 1020 square feet to 960 square feet' the increase the maximum lot coverage from 25 percent to 26 per cent, with the stipulation that the existing structure be removed within a reasonable period of time i.e. 60 days. Mr. Barna stated that as directed by Council in the letter dated December 11, 1978, No. 3,.;the following was a statement indicating why this request was different from previously brought forth W foot lot requests: a) House presently existing on.property: There is presently a house existing on that property which may or may not be economically feasible to rehabilitate. The existing house definitely is not aesthetically fitted to the neighborhood and it would aesthetically desirable to remove the house because of construction, type of windows and the location of the house on the lot. b) Houses on other hO4 lots in the immediate neighborhood: There is a house on a 40 foot lot adjoining this lot to the north which aesthetically enhances the neighborhood. There are houses on other 40 foot lots in the nieghborhood that are very nice looking Pro- perties.. all -being interior lots. c) Yo objections noted from the neighborhood indicating a potential devsluatioi of existing Homes: A large number of neighbors were present at the November loth meeting and they spoke in favor of a new home on this lot. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 13, 1979 e PAGE 8 The neighbor immediately to the north indicated that her preference would be that ' the proposed house plan be flopped so there could be adjoining driveways which would - make it easier for her to get into her garage,o Mr. Nedegaard, the petitioner' in- dicated he had no problem with that. Mr. Barna stated his personal estimate would be that this would not devaluate the other homes but would enhance the valuation of the other homes on 40 foot lots in the immediate neighborhood. d) Removal of blight and general upgrading of neighborhood: Due to the type of construction on the existing home, the removal of this house would make the other homes in the neighborhood look better especially the adjoining homes to the north and south. The construction of a house similar to the house to the north would generally, in my opinion, upgrade the neighborhood, and in the opinion of this Board I believe. The major difference would be that this was a presently.owned lot. e) The lot is an interior lot: This lot is an iAterior lot. The most important item to my mind is that this is not a tax forfeit lot. This is a lot which is presently owned by a private party and this would be the major difference between this and other -requests to the Board. It has a home on the lot which has been determined not -rentable and in Mr. Barnats opinion this request was 1000 different from other requests for 40 foot lots that have come before the Board. Mr. Barna stated he felt this was a rehabilatation of the lot rather than a rehabilitation of the house. Ms. Schnabel noted that the current owner had signed the petition and because of this it would not be a speculative type of thing such as they have had before. Also, there was a request in May of 1965 which was similar to this and it was approved. Mr. Clark stated. if Council granted the request it should have the stipulation -that the building be removed within a reasonable period of time, 60 days. That would be in accordance with the original motion made at the November 14th meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. PI MEL, MR. BARNA, MS. SCHNABEL VOTING AYE, AND MS. GABLE VOTING NAYS CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 3 TO to Mr. Barna suggested that Mr. Nedegaard get a.bill of estimate on the rehab of the present structure to show to Council how much it.would cost to rehabilitate the house. Mr. Nedegaard thanked the Commissioners. 3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE., TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIVING AREA ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE AND ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AT 1367 FIRESIDE DRIVE N.E. THE VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION IS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TAE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 18.3 FEETp AND REDUCE THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE LIVING SIDE OF TIE HOUSE TO 9 FEET. (Request by Ronald L. Gustafson, 1367 Fireside Drive NE, Fridley, Mn. 55432). MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the Public Hearing, UPON A VOICE VOTE' ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOW, SCHIVABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:20 P. M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report. as follows: APPEALS COIMSSION MEE'T'ING, FEBRUARY 13, 1979 a _ _PAGE 9 AD14INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1367 Fireside Drive N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT Section 205.053, (4,B(1)) requires a 10 food side yard setback for living area to a side lot line.. The public purpose served by this section is to maintain a 20 foot open space between living areas in a residential district. This reduces exposure to conflagration of fire and also allows for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. Section 205.053 (4,A) requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. The public purpose served by this section is to provide an open area in front of an attached garage for parking without encroachment into the public right of way. It also allows for aesthetically pleasing open area between the structure and the street and prohibits the encroachment into the line of sight for neighboring structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: It is practical to add .over the present garage for living space due to the layout of the floor plan. At present the living area i5 in the front southeast corner, and kitchen in.the front southwest making it convenient to build to the original layout. The foundation is already in place due to the garage and it would be least expensive to build in this location. Any addition to the back corners of the house would interfere with sleeping areas, and much more expensive due to a new foundation and landscaping. The proposed -garage would be elevated abovethestreet level 18", and there would be access to the living area through it. At present the garage is approximately -4 feet below the street level, and drainage is into the driveway and garage level. Adding a new garage to this area is also convenient to the layout of original house with little relandscaping needed. The new garage would make it a double instead of the present 1 stall garage. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE14: The first requested variance is to reduce the required 10 foot side yard to 9 feet. The neighboring structure to the east is located 14.5 feet east of the common line, therefore, the desired 20 feet between structures will not be reduced by the approval of this request (the distance between will be 23.5 feet). Therefore staff has no structural modification that it would recommend if the Board approved this part of the variance request. The second requested variance is to reduce the required 35 foot front yard setback to 18.3 feet. The reduction in the required front yard setback is substantial, and the opinion of the neighbors affected will have to be considered. The desired off-street. parking area can be.obtained by having the garage door open off the west side of the proposed garage, as does the existing garage. The new proposed improvements will provide for better drainage away from the APPEALS COMMISSION MIEWING, MRUARY 13, 1979 - PAGE 10 garage, as does the existing structure. Therefore, if the Board approves this portion of the request, we would concur with the petitioner's plan to raise the existing grade and have the new driveway enter the west end of the new garage. Mis. Schnabel noted that the Commissioners had received survey of the current house showing the garage which exists presently and which is the area that the proposed structure would be put over and also showed the proposed new garage. The other two surveys include the neighbors. They also had a couple drawings of the proposed garage. Also there were two photos of the house in question. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Gustafson for his comments regarding what he was planning to do. Mr. Gustafson stated the Staff Report basically covered what he.planned to do. He had not yet had plans drawn up for the floor plan because he was waiting to see if the variances would be passed:. Ms. Schnabel asked what use the proposed area over the existing garage would be put to. Mr. Gustafson stategl it would be a part of the current living room and make the living room L-shaped. The present living room was only 10 x 10. Ms. Schnabel asked how many bedrooms were in the house. Mr. Gustafson stated there were two bedrooms. Mr. Gustafson also stated that part of the addition would be used as entryway because there was not entryway in the house at present. Mr, Barna asked if they had access from the present garage into the living area. Mr. Gustafson stated.the access was to the basement. Ms. Schnabel asked how solid, the foundation was for putting the addition on. Mr. Gustafson stated the east and south walls were poured eoncrete. Mr. Plemel asked what he would do with the existing garage. Mr. Gustafson stated he would make it into a work shop. 'Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Gustafson if he had talked to his neighbors about this. Mr. Gustafson stated he had and they all seemed in favor of it mainly because most. of.the houses around him were fairly new and they would like to see it upgraded. Mr. Clark stated he had not received any calls or letters regarding this. W. Plemel asked if there was living area in the second floor. Mr. Gustafson stated that was attic. Mr. Clark stated that the reason the house was so close to the street was because the APPEALS COWaSSION MEETING,.FEBRUARY 13 1979 .. PAGE 31 house was there before the street was there. Me. Schnabel asked when the.house was built. Mr. Gustafson stated he thought it.was'built in 1955., but wasn't sure. Mr. Clark stated that the VA had done rehabilatation work on it in 1971. Mr. Plemel asked when Mr. Gustafson had brought it. Mr. Gustafson stated he had purchased it A year and a half ago.. Mr. Plemel stated it looked like it would be an addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Schnabel stated the distance between the adjacent structures on either side was more than adequate in terms of meeting our codes for fire and in terms of crowding. The only problem would be that when the addition is put on the front' that house would stick out further than the other houses around it. Mr. Plemel asked if the other houses were setback 35 feet. W. Clark stated they were.. Ms. Gabel stated she would be concerned about that too if any of the neighbors had objected; but could see where they would Teel this would upgrade the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel asked what the exterior finish would be and if they would match it with the existing exterior. Mr. Gustafson stated they would put new aluminum siding on the whole house and would also tie in the roof on the*front cont with , the existing roof. Ms. Schnabel asked if he were going to contract out the work. Mr. Gustafson stated he would do it himself. Ms. Schnabel asked what the timetable would be Mr. Gustafson stated they would start on it in the spring. Mr. Barna asked if it wouldn't be difficult to tie the footings 3n with the existing structure. Mr. Clark stated they would knock holes in the concrete block and put rods down in the hole and when they hour the footing they fill. the holes in the concrete block and create a bond between the new footing and the old house: Mr. Barna noted he would be coming up against a poured concrete wall and that would be difficult. APPEALS COMMISSION M +.STING, FEBRUARY 13o 1979 P_Ai E 12 Mr. Clark stated they could drill some ties in. Ms. Schnabel stated that the elevation of this garage would be higher than the existing driveway.. 18 inches, and asked if they would put in fill there. Mx. Clark stated they would put the footings down and pack it and then slab it. Ms. Schnabel asked if the entrance from the garage would go into the basement or into the upstairs. Mr. Gustafson stated there would be a door from the present garage to the new garage and also one going up.into the living area. MOTION by Mr. Plemel9 seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE' ALL VOXNG AYE' CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M. Mr. Barna stated he felt it would be an improvement over the present situation., and could see where there could be quite a drainage situation as it presently exists and closing it off and filling it would save a lot of trouble there. The house would have a tdndency to be long and -narrow, but would not look bad with the difference in the types of structures, that are up and down that block. The width of the lot would enhance itself to the side driveway situation so there would not be a problem there. The property owner to the east has not voiced any objections and if there were ob- jections it 7uld probably be from there. Mr. Barna stated he would have to go along with it. II Ms. Gabel agreed. MOTION by Mr. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna to approve the request for variances pursuant to bhapter 205 of the Fridley City Code., to allow the construction of living area above the existing garage and allow the construction of a new garage at 1367 Fireside Drive NE.. The variances necessary for this construction is to reduce the.front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 18.3 feet, and reduce the require. 10 foot side yard setback on the living side of the house to 9 feet' with the stipulation that the entrance to the garage be from the west side, off the street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANTT,IOU'SLY. Ms. Schnabgl informed Mr. -Gustafson that he was free to get a building permit. 4. REQUES FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODEp TO ALLOW lSTRUCTIO '.OFAG AT�8137 f ��T -.TERRACE LOP=T.PLAM7D s L ff THE - T SIM FROM Ti��PSNZNNM 75'00 SU `7Sl Q�AR :SFR' . Request by William LLeDuc, X20 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton, Nin. 55112). a APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 13._1979 - PAGE la Ms. Schnabel stated that this item should be tabled until Staff receives a survey and construction plans from the petitioner so they can be reviewed.prior to the public hearing. Mr. Clark stated he would like to co=ent that this was two 25 foot lots and right adjacent to it was two more 25 foot lots. Depending upon the plans. it would be a lot easier to have a 100 foot lot., and if he has to fill 4 feet., it would be better than the situation -we had on Fairmont Street where :the house looks like it was built on a pedestal. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms.'Gabel to table this item until the petitioner provides Staff with a survey and construction plans. Mr. Clark stated that they should re -notify the neighbors when it is re -opened. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL.VOTING AYE. CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED' UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Plemel., seconded by Mr. Barna to adjourn the February 13., 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTIM AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9;50 P.M. Respectfully submitted: !atby elton,` Recording Secretary .... ...... . a 1 4 I I i REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1979 U� PAGE 3 Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated, at the time of the public hearing last week, there were a number of items brought to the Council's attention regarding this plat. He stated, first of all, the name of the plat is to be changed from Columbia Industrial Park to Paco Industrial Park and that the westerly 25 feet of Lot 7, Block 1 and the easterly 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 1, shall be dedicated for roadway easements. Mr. Sobiech stated a reduction in the front yard setback from 100 feet to 35 feet will be permitted on the M-1 property across the right-of-way from the C-2 property and a reduction in the front yard setback will be permitted from 100 feet to 70 feet on M-1 property abutting 73rd Avenue. Mr. Sobiech stated, in consideration of reduction of the setback require- ments, development in the plat will ensure that all loading facilities will be in the rear yard. He stated underground utilities will be required and B-612 concrete curb and gutter will be required along all parking lots and driveways. In addition, approval is necessary from the Rice Creek Watershed District and the south lot line of the proposed plat will coincide with the south line of the existing utility easements. Mr. Sobiech stated street names within the plat shall be Commerce Circle East; Commerce Circle West; and Commerce Circle South and the plans and specifications for street, sanitary sewer and water improvements shall be approved by the City. Councilwoman Moses stated she didn't feel sure this road system was the best way to go for this plat since there are now service drives up and down University Avenue. Mr. Sobiech stated, with the easements that are stipulated, there could be, in the future, a service drive down to 69th Avenue. He stated the actual design might be different, but thinks the main objective is to have the capability of a service drive. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the plat for the Paco Industrial Park, P.S. #78-08, with the following stipulations: (1)The name of the plat shall be changed from Columbia Industrial Park to Paco Industrial Park; (2)The westerly 25 feet of Lot 7, Block 1 and the easterly 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 1 shall be dedicated for roadway easements; (3)A reduction in front yard setback from 100 feet to 35 feet will be permitted on the M-1 property across the right-of-way from the C-2 property; (4)A reduction in front yard setback will be permitted from 100 feet to 70 feet on M-1 property abutting 73rd Avenue; (5)In consideration of reduction of the setback requirements, development in the plat will ensure that all loading facilities are in the rear yard; (6)Underground utilities will be required; (7)B-612 concrete curb and gutter will be required along all parking lots and driveways; (8)Approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District is required; (9)The south lot line of the proposed plat will coincide with the south line of the existing utility easement; (10)Street names within the plat shall be Commerce Circle East; Commerce Circle West; and Commerce Circle South; and (11)Plans and specifications for street, sanitary sewer and water improvements shall be approved by the City. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED BY NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION CO., 4526 2ND STREET REFERREDD BACK TO APPEALS COMMISSION BY COUNCIL). Mayor Nee stated this item was referred back to the Appeals Commission for additional study and is now back before the Council for consideration. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he has received notice that the pending court case involving 40 foot lots will be heard sometime in April. Mr. Herrick stated he is a little disturbed when he reads that his advice was inconsistent, however, it does point out one of the reasons why he doesn't want to give oral legal opinions, particularly when they are given to someone and they give it to someone else. i He stated, what he had said was, if the Appeals Commission were to grant the variances, he felt they had to distinguish it from the ones that had 90 REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1979 d PAGE 4 P O previously been rejected. He stated, frankly, he would feel better if the Council did not take any action, until the court has ruled on the pending i case. However, if the Council does take action, they should distinguish this from the others. He stated, the neighborhood in this case, wants the variances granted which is somewhat different than the other cases. Councilwoman Moses questioned the case that was pending. Mayor Nee stated the City is in litigation on other 40 foot lots which are vacant and an application made for construction permits. He stated, the City, with only one or two exceptions, hasn't issued building permits on 40 foot lots. He pointed out the County started selling these lots, after there had been a hold on them for some years, and the City started getting applications for building permits. Mayor Nee stated one purchaser is now taking the City to court to require the issuance of the building permit on the 40 foot lot. MOTION by Councilman_Schne der to:-tablre-thi-s 4temy:.until after the pending 1-6c rt case: ' Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Mr. Nedegaard, the petitioner, appeared before the Council and stated he felt the City could be in litigation for two years or more and that his request has been pending since last October. He stated his concern is not the fact of building a new house, but to get rid of the old house on the lot. Mr. Nedegaard stated many of the neighboring residents were present this evening to express their views. Mr. W. G. Neuman, 4543 2nd Street, stated the property in question has been an eyesore for over 20 years and the City didn't do anything about the property. Mrs. Arlene Stromberg, 4523 Main Street, stated there is an open well on the property and was concerned because she has small children, as well as many others in the neighborhood. She stated there is an old garage that could collapse at any time. She felt it was an eyesore and health hazard. Mrs. Maria Ficenko, 4524 2nd Street, stated that kids throw debris on the property and there are bees, rats and mice. She stated she wants the house removed. Mr. Ed Hoglund, 4531 2nd Street, pointed out the property is an eyesore and that the awning is falls: tj and the roof will probably collapse. Mr. Frank Kozlak, 4512 2nd :street, stated there are mice and rats running through his yard from this property. He stated anyone that goes on this property will get hurt. He felt a new home at this location would be good for the neighborhood. Mayor Nee asked if the family living on the north side of this property was present this evening. Mr. Nedegaard stated they were at the Appeals Commission meeting and were in favor of the new house, but wanted the plan inverted. Mr. Herrick felt, since the building has been there for over 20 years, I another 60 days or so wouldn't make that much difference. If there are some hazards, however, they should be taken care of, such as the well being filled. Councilman Schneider stated he could sympathize with the problem of the house. He felt, however, there were laws on the books that could resolve it, if it was a hazard. He felt the problem with the 40 foot lots is unrelated to the hazard. He stated, if the Council voted to have the house demolished, it would then become a vacant lot for a period of time and could very well jeopardize the pending court case. Mr. Herrick stated another alternative the Council could consider is to have the existing house torn down and the lot remain vacant. He stated 0 ^is. Jl REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1979 PAGE 5 the Council is not committed to having homes built on 40 root lotc Councilman Fitzpatrick felt, if the people were living with a hazard, some things should be done to abate it. He felt they should address themselves directly to the problem of abating the hazard that is there. Councilwoman Moses felt, with all the complaints from the neighborhood, tearing the house dorm would currently resolve the problem. Mr. Nedegaard asked, if the matter is postponed for 60 days, what the Council's feelings would be. i Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the City does have an ordinance against building on 40 foot lots which is being challenged. He stated, his inter- pretation, depending on the finding if the ordinance stands, is that the City could not legally grant a building permit on the 40 foot lot. If this lot can be distinguished from other lots, by the fact that it has a house on it now, it is still, however, a legal non -conforming use. He felt, once the house is demolished, there is no difference from this lot or the other 40 foot lots. He stated, depending on the outcome of the court case, if the ordinance stands, they might be unable to issue a permit. Mr. Kozlak stated they used to build on 40 foot lots. It was pointed out that this would have been prior to the ordinance which was adopted in 1953. Mr. Herrick stated it gets down to the question on what policy the City wants to follow on 40 foot lots. He stated he realizes this is a difficult question to answer and that the problem is that, in some areas, it may make sense to build a house on a 40 foot lot and in others, it might not make sense because of what is happening in the neighborhood. He stated, if some are permitted to build and others are not, the City is in a difficult position if they are challenged by those who were not granted permits. Councilman Schneider raised the question, if the people on either side of this property would be interested in purchasing the lot. Mrs. Ficenko, one of the adjacent property owners, indicated she would not be interested in splitting the lot with the other property owner. Mr. Nedegaard stated the property owner to the North would be interested in buying part of the lot. Mr. Herrick pointed out that this particular lot does have a house on it and the surrounding property owners built their homes knowing there was a house on the 40 foot lot. In other neighborhoods where there aren't houses on the 40 foot lots, people build their homes knowing there won't be houses built on the 40 foot lots, relying on the fact that a 40 foot lot is not buildable. i Mayor Nee felt if the variance could be granted, without jeopardizing the City's position in other areas, his inclination would be to do so, however, if this one can't be done, he felt the house should be demolished. Councilman Barnette indicated he would be in favor of improving the land, however, the ordinance now makes it against the law to build on 40 foot lots. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt that, since it is the opinion of the City Attorney that proceeding on this matter would jeopardize the pending court case, he felt they should proceed according to the motion. UPON, A__VOIG.E_VpTE_TAKEN .ON.THE MOTLON, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared -ih motion carried unanimously. Mr. Herrick pointed out, if the City has proceeded with the original proposal where they would purchase the lots and put restrictions on them, they might not be in this position; however, they were assured by the County that this wasn't necessary and they would take care of the matter which didn't come to pass. 92 REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated staff would continue to work with Mr. Nedegaard to make the property as safe as possible until action is taken. Mayor Nee felt the Council would respond to this request within a few months. REVIEW OF ANOKA COUNTY PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN - DAVE TORKILDSON, DIRE&OR TABLED Z/2h%79 Mr. Qureshi, 'City Manager, stated the trail system has been redesigned so that peopl' using the trailway would not come down Rice Creek`Way. j i Mr. Torkildson` Director of the Anoka County Parks and Recrtion, stated the Master Plan has been changed accordingly and they are,,proposing Route B, as shown i'n the Council's agenda. He stated the trail would then follow the tracks and p„oposed park property and come on to Mi<5sissippi Street. I Councilman Fitz pa rick stated he felt Route B is an;improvement over the original proposal\Mnager, outing the traffic on the stareet. Mr. Qureshi, City stated in the bikeway/walkway plan a trail is shown on Rice Creey and, he understands, at the neighborhood meetings ther,'e were no objens. Mayor Nee stated, with,\the exception of tie Silverstein property, if they thought any other property might have tq''be condemned. Mr. Torkildson stated the# have met with Medtronics and they don't have any objection, but are coerned about the acreage they might need for building area, -if they havet\to give up property along the creek. He stated she believed that under the o.r�al iginagreement, the City does have a docu- ment showing that trailways geZp!'ermissible through Medtronic's property. Mr. Qureshi stated the City ha<s�_\an agreement with Medtronics that, if the trailway system didn't reduce t. eir building area, they would cooperate with the City in this regard`. f' Mr. Torkildson then revigwed the rroperties they have purchased and what ones were involved in ca,i1demnation'1�roceedings: He pointed out that the Silverstein's haven't been approach` d,until the engineering feasibility study is completed. Z, Mr. Torkildson stated the County is 1`�oking for concurrence by the City on this plan in order to qualify for t�e grant program requested by the Metropolitan Coun"0 1 which will be con' dered by the Legislature. �r � Mayor Nee questioned, if objections were�'Ame ralsed to this route, if it could be changed. Mr. Torkildson stated they would have up with a route that leads to the Mississippi River. In emphasizing t e need for such a trail, he stated it would be a demonstration trail forr'the rest of the metropolitan area and this trail would have all the natural amenities. N Mayor Nqe questioned the maintenance and if, I* the future, the County would help inthis area. Mr. Torkildson stated, since there will be ad dit''gnal maintenance in the park area because of people from outside the area sing the facilities, there should be recognition by the County and fund: should be made available far actual assistance. He felt there would have to",be some agreement to i cover this item. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the Anoka County Park and Open Space Plan, as submitted by Anoka County. Seconded by &Quncilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the�,motion carried unanimously. L-.-JFM-kl NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION 3903 FOSS ROAD - ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55421 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: COMPANY PHONE 560.0070 June 25, 1979 Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. has been trying to get approval from the City of Fridley to build a new house on a 40 foot wide lot at 4526 -2nd. Street Northeast since November 14, 1978, but as of this date still is waiting for the City to finish a court case with another party basically on the same 40 foot wide lot issue. We have been approched by the neighbor on the south side of this lot to purchase from them two additional feet and thereby making the lot size 42 feet wide. As a result we are asking the City of Fridley to approve our request for building a 24 foot wide by 40 foot long house on this lot. The previous variances would be changed to the following: The required lot area be reduced from 7500 square feet to 5418 square feet, the front yard setback be reduced from the required 35 feet to 30 feet, reduce the side yard set- backs, one from the required 10 feet to 6 feet, the other from 13 feet to 12 feet and reduce the required floor area from the required 1020 square feet to 960 square feet. Yours truly, NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 8'/U" �� Bruce A. Nedegaard President W1 CITY OF FRIDLSY, KWWOM ADDRESS AMID LEGAL OWNER/CONTRACT PURCHASER: CONSTRUCTION DATE: ADDITIONS: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED: YES ND DATE A. ZONING ACTION: ORDINANCE NO: B. SPECIAL USE PERMIT(S): # C. IQ'!.' SPLIT (S) : # D 33, D. VACATION(S): # ORDINANCE NO: E. VARIANCES APPEALS COMISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO. CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO. F. EASEMENTS: REQ' D DEPT REM Bikeway/walkway Street right -of -ray Utility Drainage Alley Other (Specify) G. LICENSE(S) (List): Date of Renewal: H. STIPULATIONS (List): DATE REQUIRED DATE COMPLETED PROPERTY SUMMARY SHEET ADDRESS: 4526 2nd Street N.E. ZONE: CONSTRUCTION DATE: ADDITIONS: ZONING ACTION: ORDINANCE NO: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/S: .LOT SPLIT: #80-03 VACATION: ORDINANCE NO: VARIANCES: APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO.� CITY COUNCIL: EASEMENTS: Bikeway Street Utility Drainage Alley Other STIPULATIONS: APPROVED DISAPPROVED IREQ 'D DEPT NO. RECD I202 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 9, 1979 PAGE 5 CONSIDERATION OF JAYCEE REQUEST FOR COMMONS PARK AND REQUEST FOR LICENSE FOR BEER AND FOOD. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the request of the Fridley Jaycees in conjunction with the Women's BB State Softball Tournament, as outlined in their letter of June 18, 1979 from Neal J. Jenewein. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. LICENSES: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's office. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to approve payments of Claims No. 160E12 through 183WO6. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ESTIMATES: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the estimates as submitted. Smith, Juster, Feikema 1250 Builders Exchange Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55402 For Legal Services rendered as Prosecutor $2,560.00 Halvorson Construction 4227 - 165th Avenue N.E. Wyoming, MN 55092 Partial Estimate #6 - Concrete curb and gutter contract Comstock and Davis, Inc. 1446 County Road "J" Minneapolis, MN 55432 Partial Estimate No. 1 - Consulting Services - for S & W Project #127 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 300 Hanover Building 480 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Membership dues for the year ISLANDS OF PEACE PROJECT (to be paid out of interest money) Fridley Our Own Hardware 214 Mississippi St. N.E. Fridley, MN 55430 Screws and Fasteners Bethel Marine 21155 Highway 65 N.E. Cedar, MN 55001 Life Jackets (6) Hat (1) Less 20% discount Minnegasco 714 2nd Avenue. So. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Gas Service $8,565.00 $7,079.72 $3,023.00 $ 18.90 i $ 53.70 5.95 -11.93 —77. —72 99.69 REGULAR MEETING t JULY 9, lg PAGE 6 ?03 Ed Wilmes 23707 University Avenue N.E. Bethel, MN 55005 Gasoline and auto expenses 38.95 TOTAL FOR ISLANDS OF PEACE $ 205.26 Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS: POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH, KAUFAMN & DOTY, LTD. - CLAIM AGAINST ISLANDS OF PEACE FOUNDATION: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the communication dated June 8, 1979 from Frederick Brown, with the above law firm, regarding the claim by the American Improvement Corporation against the Islands of Peace Foundation. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this work done by the American Improvement Corporation was not authorized by the City, but by the Islands of Peace Foundation and stated that some of the cost for this improvement has been paid. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated if the facts are developed that the City did not authorize the work, the City probably wouldn't be held liable. He felt, if this •matter went to litigation, the City would have a good chance of prevailing. He questioned, however, if there was any moral obligation on the City's part to pay a portion of the claim or come to some compromise. Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, pointed out that there is some interest money that possibly could be used for this purpose. Councilman Barnette felt the City should deal with the Foundation's Treasurer, Mr. Langenfeld, to obtain information from them regarding the claim. Mayor Nee felt this matter should be referred to the Islands of Peace for a proposal from them on how this should be handled. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to direct the administration to contact the Islands of Peace regarding this claim and for the Islands of Peace to come back with a proposal. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared -the motion carried unanimously. NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC:: APPROVAL TO BUILD NEW HOUSE ON A 40 FOOT LOT AT 4526 - 2ND STREET: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the communication from Bruce Nedegaard dated June 25, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, pointed out that the trial with Hedlund regarding 40 foot lots is scheduled for July 26 or 27 and felt the City should maintain their present position until after this trial. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the Council does have the recommendation from the City Attorney not to act before the case coming to trial is disposed of, however, he indicated he didn't feel the extra two feet would change anything. RECEIVING LETTER FROM BOB BRYANT, 5421 7TH STREET RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST GENERAL TELEVISION: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the letter form Mr. Bob Bryant and refer it to the Cable Television Commission. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. A e� Y - .r From the desk of SPEED MESSAGE g DATE May 7, 1980 NASIM QURF.SM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Tp John Flora, DPW � SUBJECT_ Request for Variance 4Y Mr. Nedegaard, 111 45th Ave Mr. Nede aard indicated he can acquire an additional 2 feet to make the buildable width of the lot 42'. The next door house has sizeable property but his arage is only 5' from the property line Maybe we should check into the possibility that if we give this neighbor a varianceaof side yard for gara a of 2' to 0', would he be willing to sell 5' to Mr. Nede aard? Make.a copy of the 50 scale aerial photo so Darrel you-anddiscuss the item and hopefully come up with an approach to resolvethisaquestion. Please discuss -.with me on Monda . Thank ou — G line •-S NAP -AWAY" FORM 44.899 2 -PARTS FROM NMQ/mS WILSON JONES COMPANY • ;C 1961 • PRINTED IN U. S. A. ga �` ¢e+P' �^. Qin ,g� p ,req, p��$ p �� fr-.. dam' � d7 ! C, +moi �f lJw�+/'s r�'�y /x ®Lx a MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-39 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Variance for 40' Lot by Bruce Nedegaard .i I met with Bruce Nedegaard and Mr. & Mrs. Ficenko on May 12,. 1980 to discuss the potential for increasing the size of an existing 40 foot lot. Mr: & Mrs. Ficenko seemed like they would be willing to sell 2 feet of their property to make a 42 foot lot. I discussed the potential of purchasing 5 feet or up to the garage structure, but they indicated that it was out of the question. They stated thay they would see no more than 2 feet. In visiting the site and discussing this with them, I would recommend that we accept the additional 2 feet and have the structure taken down as soon as possible and thus follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Appeals Commission. Mr. Nedegaard will draw up necessary purchase agreements subject to approval by the City Council and will submit them for Council Action on May.19, 1980. The variance was for 4526 2nd Street N.E., located on Lot 9, Block 13, Plymouth Addition. JLB/de r� MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-40 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Nedegaard Request for Construction on 40' Lot at 4526 2nd Street N..E Please see attached map. There are 3 existing 40' lots on same block that have been built, along with several others in the general area. Since the property just north of this lot is also a 40 foot lot and the structure is in good condition, it seems unlikely that the lots could be combined for one structure. JLB/de 0i, A -a7TW AV '-4f 41 '4 �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4!R -47§7 4T56 f. G G3t 47 3 AZ?44— 41'1- li—I � 4 4 7 N (0,;t2- -1 47.;j k7 Agi cn ZY 4,7 4& 1. -440 4717 4724 7 4 fie, J 9715 to 4 -a7TW AV • AVS - 46 b3 639 4 (-Z-r 4 4 ST#i.,. __._El 16 - -- -- --N . %.fJ%,.l*;r. " --- -t . A- �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4!R 4!g .41,1Z 4 G3t 6�3 4634 41'1- ?439 -4dt 7 N (0,;t2- -1 2,f 4 0 ,A Agi 4!k 446 4& 1. -440 • AVS - 46 b3 639 4 (-Z-r 4 4 ST#i.,. __._El 16 - -- -- --N . %.fJ%,.l*;r. " --- -t . A- �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4!R 4!g .41,1Z 16 G3t 6�3 4634 41'1- -4dt P-4 "A ,A Avs bw 4!k 4& 1. -440 • AVS - 46 b3 639 4 (-Z-r 4 4 ST#i.,. __._El 16 - -- -- --N . %.fJ%,.l*;r. " --- -t . A- Al All �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4!R 4!g 141�4 16 %4 � 41'1- ,4 sl P-4 "A Al: Avs bw 4!k 4& 1. Al All �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4!R 4!g 16 %4 4 41'1- ,4 sl P-4 "A Asa I- Avs bw . �" . & -, S. w CORNER SEC. 26 0 z LOTS PLATTED AS "REARRANGEMENT 0 BLOCKS 1:3,14,15, PLYMOUTH- I �4§44 4!,� JJW. A 4 4s J-9 4!g %4 4 41'1- w. "A . �" . & -, S. w CORNER SEC. 26 0 z LOTS PLATTED AS "REARRANGEMENT 0 BLOCKS 1:3,14,15, PLYMOUTH- I MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-39 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Variance for 40' Lot by Bruce Nedegaard I met with Bruce Nedegaard and Mr.. & Mrs. Ficenko on May 12, 1980 to discuss the potential for increasing the size of an existing 40 foot lot. Mr. & Mrs. Ficenko seemed like they would be willing to sell 2 feet of their property to make a 42 foot lot. I discussed the potential of purchasing 5 feet or up to the garage.structure, but they indicated that it was out of the question. They stated thay they would see no more than 2 feet. In visiting the site and discussing this with them, I would recommend that we accept the additional 2 feet and have the structure taken down as soon as possible and thus follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Appeals Commission. Mr. Nedegaard will draw up necessary purchase agreements subject to approval by the City Council and will submit them for Council Action on May 19, 1980. The variance was for 4526 2nd Street N.E., located on Lot.9, Block 13, Plymouth Addition. JLB/de MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-40 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Nedegaard Request for Construction on 40' Lot at 4526 2nd Street N..E Please.see attached map. There are 3 existing 40' lots on same block that have been built, along with several others in the general area. Since the' property just north of this lot is also a 40 foot lot and the structure is in good condition, it seems unlikely that the lots could be combined for one structure. JLB/de No. 5017'1/: (REVISED JUNE. 1072) NELSON'S OFFICE W1117IE—Office Cop SUPPLY STORES PURCHASE AGREEMENT P�—��B'Cop�°p' GOLD—Buyer's Receipt FORM APPROVED BY MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ................................ ........ ........ 19. ....... _.. RECEIVED OF... the sum of ........ ......... .......................,...............................:: ( ) DOLLARS ............ ....................... ..............................................................................:as earnest money and in part payment for the purchase of property at (Check, Cash or Note — State which) ........ .. ............................ .......................... ................ .............................................situated in the County of.................!....................................................... State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows, to -wit: including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and trees, all storm sash, storm doors, detachable vestibules, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds ( including venetian blinds) , curtain rods, traverse rods, drapery rods, lighting fixtures and bulbs, plumbing fixtures, hot water tanks and heating plant (with any burners, tanks, stokers and other equipment used in connection there- with), water softener and liquid gas tank and controls (if the property of seller), sump pump, television antenna, inciner- ator, built-in dishwasher, garbage disposal, ovens, cook top stoves and central air conditioning equipment, if any, used and located on said premises and including also the following personal property: all of which property the undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of: :..::. .....! :.:::...::...............................:...:: .:..:::....:......::....:. ( ... ) DOLLARS, S which the buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest money herein paid $.....::................. and $ ......................... cash, on .................................:......... the date of closing. Subject to performance by the buyer the seller agrees to execute and deliver a.........................................................................Warranty Deed (to be joined in by spouse, if any) conveying marketable title to said premises subject only to the following exceptions: (a) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, State and Federal regulations. (b) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of premises without effective forfeiture provision. (c) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. (d) Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvements. (e) Rights of tenants as follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies) The buyer shall pay the real estate taxes due in the year 19 ---and any unpaid installments of special assesments payable therewith and thereafter. Seller warrants that real estate taxes due in the year 19 ....:.... will be ............:......................................... homestead classification (full, partial or non -homestead — state which) Seller covenants that buildings, if any, are entirely within the boundary lines of the property and agrees to remove all personal property not included herein and all debris from the premises prior to possession date. Seller warrants all appliances, heating, air conditioning, wiring and plumbing used and located on said premises are in proper working order at date of dosing. agreement have beeer n comer ped with. rees to Unlesver s otherwise specifiedossession not later tthis sale shall be close fore "' provided that all conditions of this d on or before 60 days from the date hereof. In the event this property is destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other cause before the closing date, this agreement shall become null and void, at the purchaser's option, and all monies paid hereunder shall be refunded to him. The buyer and seller also mutually agree that pro rata adjustments of rents, interest, insurance and city water, and, in the case of income property, current operating expenses, shall be made as of ............. :.:..................... The seller shall, within a reasonable time after approval of this agreement, furnish an abstract of title, or a Registered Property Abstract certified to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and liens. The buyer shall be allowed 10 days after, receipt thereof for examination of said title and the making of any objections thereto, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. If any objections are so made the seller shall be allowed 120 days to make such title marketable. Pending correction of title the payments hereunder required shall be postponed, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to the buyer, the parties shall perform this agreement according to its terms. If said title is not marketable and is not made so within 120 days from the date of written objections thereto as above provided, this agreement shall be null and void, and neither principal shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other principal. All money theretofore paid by the buyer shall be refunded. If the title to said property be found marketable or be so made within said time, and said buyer shall default in any of the agreements and continue in default for a period of 10 days, then and in that case the seller may terminate this contract and on such termination all the payments made upon this contract shall be retained by said seller and said agent, as their respective interests may appear, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right of enforcing the specific performance of this contract provided such contract shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. It is understood and agreed that this sale is made subject to the approval by the owner of said .premises in writing and that the under- signed agent is in no manner liable or responsible on account of this agreement, except to return or account for the earnest money paid under this contract. The delivery of all papers and monies shall be made at the office of: I, the undersigned, owner of the above land, do hereby approve the above agreement and the sale thereby made. ............ (SEAL) Seller By............................................................................................Agent I hereby agree to purchase the said property for the price and upon the terms above mentioned, and subject to all conditions herein expressed. ................ ........................................................... ( SEAL) Buyer ......... ..................................................................................... (SEAL)II......:........:..............................................................................(SEAL) Seller Buyer THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE. MEMO TO: , Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager MEMO FROM: John G. Flora, Director -Public Works MEMO DATE: May 15, 1980 REGARDING: Variance Request by Nedegaard Construction Company for 4526 - 2nd Street N.E. 1. The City Council agenda for the May 19th meeting has the reconsideration of the variance request from Nedegaard Construction Company for constructing a residence at 4526 - 2nd Street N.E. which was tabled on March 5, 1979 added to it. 2. Since the request for a building variance was tabled, Mr. Nedegaard has obtained an additional two feet of land, making the property lot 42' x 129' resulting in a reduction in side yard setback and lot square footage variances. 3. As previously noted, the neighboring residents are supporters of the variance and elimination of the existing structure removes an unattractive, rodent -ridden, and unsanitary blight. The new family residence on an interior lot would be a considerable improvement and upgrading to the neighborhood and be compatible to the adjacent 40 foot property. In addition, this lot is larger than the three 40 foot lots on the block. 4. In the past the Council has approved a construction variance on a 41.5 x 130.5 foot lot. As this request is a 42 foot lot, it is not compatible to the current litigation concerning 40 foot lots. 5. Recommend the City Council approve the variances; a) Lot area from 7500 square feet to 5418 square feet b) Front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet c) Side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet, and 13 feet to 12 feet d) Floor area from 1020 square feet to 960 square feet IE!, n] MEMO TO: Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager MEMO FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director MEMO DATE: May 14, 1980 SUBJECT: Variance for 40' Lot by Bruce Nedegaard We have been coordinating with Mr. Nedegaard and his neighbor on the possibility of increasing his lot width above 40 feet per the comments at the City Council meeting on May 5, 1980. The next door neighbor has his garage and hedge bushes located such that he is not interested in selling more than two feet to Mr. Nede- gaard. Selling the two feet will allow his garage to remain within the side yard minimum clearance of three feet. On the block in question, there are four 40 foot and two 60 foot lots, all with structures on them. The remainder are in excess of 75 feet. As the sale of two feet to Mr. Nedegaard results in a 42 foot lot and there are existing 40 foot built-up lots on the block and in the area, and the fact that the neighborhood is interested in Mr. Nedegaard remov- ing the existing old substandard home and replacing it with a new code satisfying family residence, it is recommended the variance tabled by the City Council on March 5, 1979 be returned and approved. JGF:ik Enc. 2 4 MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-40 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Nedegaard Request for Construction on 40' Lot at 4526 2nd Street N..E Please see attached map. There are 3 existing 40' lots on same block that have been built, along with several others in the general area. Since the property just north of this lot is also a 40 foot lot and the structure is in good condition, it seems unlikely that the lots could be combined for one structure. JLB/de MEMO TO:. John Flora, Public Works Director MEMO FROM: Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner MEMO NO.: #80-39 MEMO DATE: May 13, 1980 RE: Variance for 40' Lot by Bruce Nedegaard 'y I met with Bruce Nedegaard and Mr. & Mrs. Ficenko on May 12, 1980 to discuss the potential for increasing the size of an existing 40 foot lot. Mr. & Mrs. Ficenko seemed like they would be willing to sell 2 feet of their property to make a 42 foot lot. I discussed the potential of purchasing 5 feet or up to the garage structure, but they indicated that it was out of the question. They stated thay they would see no more than 2 feet. In visiting the site and discussing this with them, I would recommend that we accept the additional 2 feet and have the structure taken down as soon as possible and thus follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Appeals Commission. Mr. Nedegaard will draw up necessary purchase agreements subject to approval by the City Council and will submit them for Council Action on May.19, 1980. The variance was for 4526 2nd Street N.E., located on Lot -9, Block 13, Plymouth Addition. JLB/de ME N �C 4 50 . �R • QZ,44 47(4 4,G �b;�j •�63$. cf)t5 t d 74 5 n `4Dr 473 cn _ 4b24 �. ; ,�io cn g7�g -46z4 6S_o 4 s ..4 a 7a o �9 T 15 9 .t >^'e�+r"�•�•..•�� t U 7J.r' 7 ! O 00 J '7r �.: 1,Q 7 47 t t 4 ?a9 IY9 -47O.A. J J 47TN_ AVE. �C 4 50 . �R • y a4 -- R • 9 4,G �b;�j •�63$. tn33 4630 5 n `4Dr 4�9 x,2.5 4b24 �. ; ,�io y4s� t- 69, -46z4 6S_o 4 s ..4 *21 Ci �tiltif t � !1 ; •JJ / 4 .7 �R • y a4 -- R • 9 4,G �b;�j •�63$. tn33 4630 5 n `4Dr x,2.5 4b24 �. Zr [-4 ,�io y4s� t- 69, 4rt 0 *21 :4Ca ` to f :465, f 4f.2T , [4 Co IT � ® r � R .7 �R • y a4 -- R • 9 1 ,- -4e JJ -4 5 n `4Dr IlI a! /,O JJ i!c'- ils aJr•- — y4s� t- wfi��6 A 0 *21 •JJ / IY9 � ® r � R 7 Or5 O �R • y a4 -- 1Je 1 ,- -4e JJ -4 5 n `4Dr IlI a! /,O JJ i!c'- ils aJr•- — y4s� t- wfi��6 A 45(zzT *21 S. W CORNER SEC. 26 �y 5. mea ti LS�% 457. 4a. JJ'w J'�i ti V = LOTS PLATTED AS "REARRANGEMENT 01 BLOCKS 13,14,15, PLYMOUTH" 4i 4sa I -45?sF_ 1 ,- -4e a U. cm FA 45(zzT *21 �y 5. mea ti LS�% 457. 4a. JJ'w J'�i ti V = LOTS PLATTED AS "REARRANGEMENT 01 BLOCKS 13,14,15, PLYMOUTH" A REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 19, 1980 PAGE 2 NTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PORTIONS OF ST. 1979-1 AND 2 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: EASTERLY ONE-HALF ASHTON AVENUE AND MAIN STREET FROM 77TH TO 79TH MayoNee re -opened this public Hearing on the Easterly one-half of Ashto Avenu and Main Street from 77th to 79th Avenues. Mr. Qu\easterlyone City Manager, stated it was found a public hearing from a im- provemeect on Main Street from 77th to 79th Avenues was not h d, therefis recommended this not be assessed and the improveme t paid for outnds for the City's overlay program. In regas ton Avenue, Mr. Qureshi stated the City has me with repre- sentatith Burlington Northern Railroad, and the reco endation of the City Atis at•the hearing be held open on the issue of the assessment of the ly one calf of Ashton. He stated, hopefully the issue withthe Burlingrthern n be resolved and construction com eted within next couple ths. Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, fated he would like the haring closed for the balance of the project so at an assessment roll c4n be sent to the County. He pointed out, if Ashton vb Nnue is completed, it ouldn't affect the pro- perties on.;the West side, but m y the railroad pro- _0 on the East side. Mayor Nee pointed out the Counci is consider' g whether or not the proposed benefit, as submitted by the s\ , is reaso able on the West side of Ashton. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated i the ouncil adopts the assessment roll, it actually establishes the costs fo tb westerly side of Ashton and the price residential properties in the a a would pay for the improvement. Mr. Heron, representing the Burling on orthern Railroad, reque,-ted the assessments be deferred until such time the project is completed. He stated, since the City Attorney ' meetin with representatives of Burlington j t Northern, it is hoped some agre ent could be reached and the entire project completed, and then assessed, ccording to he City policy. r Mayor Nee asked if he was p oposing the west ide of Ashton not be assessed at this time. Mr. Heron s ated he is requesti g that the entire Ashton Avenue project not be assessed. MOTION by CouncilmanF' zpatrick to close the pub is hearing on the assessment i roll of a portion of 1979-1 and 2 Street Impro ement Project (Main Street j from 77th to 79th Av rues), with the exception of e East side of Ashton Avenue which is to emain open. Seconded by Counci oman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting e, Mayor Nee declared the motion rried unanimously and the public hearing c osed at 8:20 p.m. i OLD BUSINESS: RESOLUTION f1 . 45-1980 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR THE ST. 19 -1 and 2 STREET t IMPROVEMEN PROJECT TABLED MAY 12, 1980): 1 Mr. Qu re i, City Manager, stated this resolution could be adopte if it is amended o omit Main Street from 77th to 79tH Avenues, and to delet the East side o Ashton Avenue. MOTI N by Councilwoman Moses to adopt Resolution -No. 45-1980 with Main St et I fro i 77th to 79th Avenues omitted and the deletion of the East side of Ash. Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, j Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED BY NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 4526 - 2ND STREET TABLED MARCH 5, 1979 Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated since this request was tabled by the Council, the applicant, Mr. Nedegaard, has obtained two additional feet of land which would result in a reduction of the side yard setback and lot square footage variances. i t 1.51 R 150 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 19, 1980 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order, after e Board of Review Meeting, at 7:55 p.m. by Mayor Nee. LL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Moses, -M or Nee, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnett EMBER ABSENT: None APPROV OF MINUTES: tbyouncilman TING, MAY 5, 1980: MOTIOSchneider to approve the minutes a presented. Secondedby Cotzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all vot' g aye, Mayor Nee declaren carried unanimously. MOTION by Coun ilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the ag nda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman ores. Upon a voice vote, all hoting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carriLNd unanimously. Mr. Doug Osieczanek, 101 Crown Road, rais d a question on the ordinance con- cerning junk vehicles He stated it was ridiculous to make someone buy a license for a vehicle Nhenthey were in Germany serving with the Armed Forces and the car is in they rd on blocks. Councilman Schneider stat d he can s mpathize with what Mr. Osieczanek is saying, however, if a car in a y rd up on blocks and it is an eyesore, the ordinance does give the Cit the r ght to have it removed. Councilwoman Moses stated the o cern was that vehicles shouldn't be around to create an eyesore for the ne ghborhood. Mr. Osieczanek stated his nei hbo doesn't have any complaints about the vehicle. Mayor Nee explained Mr. Osi zanek as a camper behind his garage that he uses for storage, but otherwise s opera b e, and he maintains this is not a junk vehicle. .He stated Mr. Os eczanek di not wish to put a license plate on it. " Mr. Osieczanek stated he ould put a 1 cense plate on, but would have to go through all the processi g with the Sta and put insurance on the vehicle. Mr. Osieczanek stated a probably has one f the best looking yards in the City, however, when a ordinance was passe Mr. Olson, the inspector, was right at his door. Councilman Schneid r stated he didn't know the s.tuation with Mr. Osieczanek and Mr. Olson, bu would hate to create an except n to an ordinance which he believes, if enf rced properly, is beneficial to th entire City. Mayor Nee stat d apparently Mr. Osieczanek received a otice to abate in 14 days. The other q stion raised by Mr. Osfeczanek concerned his peasants. He stated a notice w received from Mr. Olson that he was too closet the lot line. He explained oth of his neighbors do not object to the pheasant Mr. Qure hi, City Manager, suggested additional facts and inform tion be ob- tained ith a report back to the Council. Mr., 0 ieczanek asked if he had to comply with the ordinance now as f as re- mova of the truck. M or Nee stated he would like to see staff's report and he would get ba k to Osieczanek on this matter. I 152 4 i REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 19, 1980 PAGE 3 The variances now required would be a reduction in the lot area from 7,500 square feet to 5,418 square feet; a front yard setback from 35 feet to .30 feet; side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet and 13 feet to 12 feet; and floor area from 1,020 square feet to 960 square feet. Mr. Qureshi stated the result is now two changes made from the original request since the acquisition of the additional property. He pointed out the neighboring residents support the variance and elimination of the existing structure to re- move an unattractive, unsanitary health hazard. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant the variances, which are reduced from the original request, as follows: (1) Reduce the lot area from 7,500 sq. feet to 5,418 sq. feet; (2) front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet; (3) side yard setbacks from 10 to 6 feet a`nd 13 to 12 feet; and (4) floor area from 1,020 sq. feet to 960 sq. ft. for the reasons that there is an existing structure on the lot which is unattractive and a nuisance and health hazard and that this dew structure would be compatible with .other properties on. the block having a ldt size of 40 feet and, further, the variance has not been objected to by the ad- jacent residents. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REZONI ROBERT SCHROER: MO ON by CouncilwomanMosesto waive. the second.rea ng of Ordinance No— 711 and adopt it and order publication. Seconded by CoVhcilman Schneider. Upon a voic vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the/motion carried unanimously. BUSINESS: USE OF C M. - RECUEST BY BOB'S Dr: Boudreau, Pa7eda Recreation Director, stated the Council has authorized four tournamentsghout the year us'ng City facilities and these have been operated by non -t rganizations, owever, only two organizations decided to host a tournathis ear. i Dr. Boudreau s'tarequest as eceived by Mr. Larry Hartman, representing the Bob's Produch Team, t host a tournament the weekend of August 9-10 at Commons Park.e this h of been the City's policy in the past, the request was submto the arks nd Recreation Commission for their consid- eration and is nore t Cound Dr. Boudreau stated if requests areapproved for indl to s to host ournaments, the City could conceivably have 103 other taki g a similar quest and possibly.put the City in a position to devei ria on which to s would be able to sponsor a tourna- ment. Councilman Schneider questioned what argumen s were made for having this tourna- ment. Dr. Boudrea stated the question addre sed by the Parks and Recreation, Commission was th only two tournaments were oing to be held this year, in- stead of the fou ,and since there were no obje tions, to grant approval of the request on K"test" basis for a one year per d. This motion resulted in a tie vote bef re the Parks and Recreation Commis n, with 2 in favor and 2 opposed. Dr. Boudreio stated one of the points mentioned was tNs, was an individual team who stood o make a profit from holding the tournament, ith the proceeds going to one to m, He felt this might be considered a negative oint, but, on the other hat/d, it might give Fridley an opportunity to be repsented in a National tournam nt. Counc"lman Barnette questioned the objections. Dr. Boudreau sta d if the re- ques is approved, they would, in fact, set a precedent. He point out individual tea could apply to hold tournaments in the City and the City coulace the si uation of having 103 different requests from teams to hold tourname s every w kend. He felt it has been the City policy the weekends, at least, s16,ld be o en for residents to participate in activities at these fields. 15� , REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 19, 1980 PAGE 4 Councilwoman Moses asked Dr. Boudreau if it was his recommendation the request be denied. He stated staff doesn't have a strong recommendation one way o the other: He stated they are looking for a policy, as the past policy was o y four tournaments were held in the City in any one year and individual teams h ven't been ,wed to host a tournament using City facilities. Councilman Barnette asked if all costs would be borne by the sponsor Dr. Boudreau tated the City would have some cost in the use of the lights and uipment. ouncilman Fitzpatrick asked if it has been the policy in the pas to have City p rsonnel present at the tournaments. Dr. Boudreau stated, acco ding to the Mi nesota Recreation and Park Association, they have to pay in rder to be sa ctioned and a member of the Association would become the t urnament supervisor. He tated, in the past, they have requested anyone sponsori a tournament obtain an o f -duty or regular police officer to be at the park. Mr. H rick, City Attorney, -felt if there has been a po icy in the past for,having four t rnaments, it could probably be handled by ind' ating preference would be given fi st to civic, non-profit organizations and i there are not four tourna- ments fro these organizations, to allow some othe sponsor. i Mayor Nee qu tioned if many complaints were re eived on weekend tournaments. Dr. Boudreau s ted he was sure Council is aw e of the ciomplaints received on the use of the 'eIds and parking problems a d believed this was one of the reasons they try reduce, whenever possi e, the use of that facility. Mayor Nee asked if he thought the prose s from the tournament would be split with the Park Departmen . Dr. Boudrea explained there is a $100 deposit fee and, generally, the spon r has been ery generous to make a donation of some piece of equipment that wo ld be pu back into the facility. He stated this team has indicationed they a e wil ing to do this, however, they have not been approached on the question o s fitting the proceeds. MOTION by Councilman Barnette o pprove the request from Mr. Larry Hartman for Bob's Produce Team to sp nsor softball tournament, with the understanding that it is for one year on and a W lar request next year would have to be considered separately. S conded by uncilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye; Mayor N declared the otion carried unanimously. I CONSIDERATION OF A RE EST FOR A 3 -YEAR R EWAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-16 FROM 6/26/80 TO 6/26,f83 TO OPERATE MOBILE ME SALES, 7151 HIGHWAY N0. 65, REYNOLD E7ahree Mr. Floraneer, stated staff has•r\byCou his request and has no objection year renewal of the speermit. MOTIO14 by Schneider to grant the f special use permit, SP #74-16ee year period. Secondecilman Fitzpatrick. i Mr. Harri , Chairman of the Planning Commission, state the ordinance requires that a s ecial use permit goes through the Planning Comm' sion for a public hearing He requested an opinion from the City AttorneyXteination g was neces- sary f r the renewal. Mr. errick, City Attorney, questioned if the permit had date. Mr. Flora stated it would expire on June 26 and it has besince 1969. Mr Herrick stated if there is an actual termination datesent per- mit, it probably should go through the public hearing pro Councilman Schneider withdrew his motion, with permission of his sec\der, Councilman Fitzpatrick. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this item to the Planning Cofor recommendation. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vvoting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. c Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, July 9, 1980 Page 5 Chairman Harris stated that it was not proper to discuss the problems related to the rezoning request of Mr. Christensen's without the petitioner being present at the meeting. - I�Dtion: by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, that the Planning Commission continue ,the public hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #80-03, by. Carl E. Christensen, D/B/A 'Christensen Auto Body, until July 23, 1980. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye; Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. r 5. PUBLIC HEARING: RE VEST FOR SPECIAL -USE PERMIT 5Y 9F:'"�"" d VnnL t;tucl�i ;iv�e.iv DIBIA Christensen AUTO BODY: per Section 205.101, 3, D, to allow a garage for the storage, repairs and servicing of motor v&.-eles of over two -ton capacity, located on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block 6, Fridley Park, the same being 6501 East River Road-N.E. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Wharton, that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the Special Use Permit request,' -SP #80-08, by Carl E. Christensen, .D/B/A Christensen Auto Body, Per Section 205.101, 3, D, to allow A garage for the storage, repairs and servicing of motor vehicles not over two -ton capacity, located on Lot.s 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 6, Fridley Park, the same being 6501 East River Road N.E., until -July 23, 1980. Upon a voice vote, all -voting aye, Chairman'Harris-declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. L SLIT REUEST: L.A. �� 80-03 b on Nedegaard ConstructiCom an Split off the North 2 feet of Lot 10, B1ock.13, Plymouth Addition and.add to Lot 9, Block 13, Plymouth Addition, to make a 42 foot building site, the same being 4526 2nd Stream N.E. No.one was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Nedegaard wants to tear down an existing dilapitated house and construct a new one. He had been to the. Appeals Commission quite a while ago for the necessary variances. They recommended'he try to get additional property which he was now doing with this lot split request. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council Approval of the request fora lot split, L.S. #80-03, by Nedegaard Construction Company, to Split off the North 2 feet of Lot 10, Block 13, Plymouth Addition, and add it to Lot 9, Block 13, Plymouth Addition, to make a-42 foot building:_;site, the same being 4526 2nd Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE MEMO #80-02, TO JERROLD BOARDMAN FROM WILLIAM DEBLON RE: METROPOLITON COUNCI'L'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FRIDLEY CRITICAL. AREA PLAN. Motion by Mrs. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Gabel to approve recommended changes on the plan and submit it to City Council so the EQC can adopt the changes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion was passed unanimously. 8. RECEIVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: JUNE 12, 1980. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs. Hughes, -to receive the June 12, 1980 Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. Mr. Boardman stated that the City would be purchasing the Standard Oil property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, July 9, 1980 Page 6 9. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL -QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES_:__ JUNE- 1.7.' 1980, MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs. Hughes, to receive the June -17, 1980 ._._._ Environmental Quality Commission minutes, -The PCA, which is responsible for the development in a certain area -is also responsible for removing all the contaminated Creosote soil. UPON A VOICE VOTE; s1LL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded.by Mrs. Hughes, that the Planning Commission request the City Council to --sa.pply the Environmental Quality Commission -with copies of Department of Health Studies; Communications with the Comprehensive Health Department of Anoka County, MPCA Studies and Communications, memos and communications between the City Council or City. Manager and Onan Corporation and Metronic Corporation for. review to try and determine what, if anything; can be done about the creosote problem... UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED.THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Motion by Iangenfeld, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, that the Planning Commission request the City Council for the latest information regarding the Joint Powers Agreement ; with Anoka County. ITON .A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION .PAaS SED UNANIMOUSLY, MOTION. by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Wharton, to recommend to City Council, through Planning Commissiot, that Earth Week, April 1981, be declared "clean-up week in the City of Fridley',' The Environmental Quility Commission would ask the Planning Commission and City Council to -give an indication of what -type-of, support the City would provide; I. E,, trucks, garbage bags,.etc. `.Che Environmentail Quality Commission feels the ccti.cept of planning eht week could be helped by contacting local citizen agencies such as the Boy Scouts, Jaycees, etc,; to assist in carrying out the cleau-up. UPON A VOICE. -VOTE, ALL . VOTING A`?Y, CHI. IRMAN - HARRIS DECLARED 'THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. RECEIVE_THE ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 24,- 1980. MOTION by Mr. Wharton, seconded by Mrs. Hughes, to receive the June 24, 1980 Energy Commission minutes. The Energy lair is to take place in September or the 1st part of October. Mr. Boardman said that the City is presently working on a computer program to monitor street lights to provide for bstter energy consumption. He soid that they are promoting the image that the City is doirig something about energy conservation. The City is also reducing the size of it's vehicles. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, -CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. V CITY OF FRIDLEY6639 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 TELEPHONE ( 692)579-3450 July 25, 1980 CITY COUNUL ACT10N TAKEN- NOTICE, Nedegaard Construction Co. 3903 Foss Road St. Anthony, Mn 55418 On July 25� 198 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request : or L�.S.�_aO--n3 for 4526 2nd Street PL E %,ith the stipulations listed below: IG1TM If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. SincerelNi, BOLD L. AR JLaide f'City Planner Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley. Concur with action taken. tyn REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 21, 1980 PAGE 3 five years, and that this agreement be recorded. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUIREMENT, LS --#80-03, 4526 -2nd STREET, NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Mayor Nee said that this Lot Split was to add 2 feet to a 40 foot lot to Mayor a building site. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick, seconded by Councilman Schneider, to concur with the Planning Commission and approve the Lot Split Request. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 'RECEIVING MEMO #80-02 TO JERROLD BOARDMAN FROM WTIITAM nFRInm PF - Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, asked Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, if there -was a time restraint on this review. Mr. Flora said that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is in the process of reviewing our critical area plan for the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Environmental Quality Board does not want to move on the review until they have the City's comments on the Metro Council's suggested amendments to our plan. Mr. Flora outlined the three areas of concern to the Metro Council, and the changes recommended by staff. Mr. Schneider asked what the order of procedure was, and Mr. Flora said that the Metro Council asked the Metropolitan Environmental Quality Board to review the recommended amendments the Metro Council has made to Fridley's critical area plan, then it will go back to the Metro Council. Councilwoman Moses asked if this includes both the Mississippi River and Rice Creek. Mr. Flora said this includes both Rice Creek and the River and trees, vegetation and runoff. Mayor Nee said he wondered what their concern -was in the connection between the Rice Creek West Regional Trail and the river corridor trail. Mr. Qureshi said he felt they just wanted this trail route shown on the map. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick, seconded by Councilwoman Moses, to amend the Critical Area Plan to include the five changes as recommended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission, and forward these amendments to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board as requested. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider, seconded by Councilwoman Moses, to receive the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 9, 1980. Upon a voice vote all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1980: MOTION Councilman, seconded by Councilwoman Moses, to receive the minutes of the Cable Television Commission Meeting of June 12, 1980. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOKA COUNTY IN REGARD TO COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT DEVELOPMENT FUNDS: Mayor Nee said the question is whether or not we should join Anoka County in I applying for these funds. He said this is a rather new idea and asked the • Public Works Director to explain it. Mr. Flora reviewed the City's requests for -funds -in-the past ,-the useof-- funds we have received, and the fact that we were denied funds in 1979 and Ir will not be able to meet the criteria for funds in 1980. 19, REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 21 1980 PAGE 4 He said that by joining with Anoka County, as an urban county, we will be able to qualify for funds more readily and he recommended the City respond to the County and request they send us the cooperative agreement for review. Councilwoman. Moses inquired whether we had -any idea on how much the City would be eligible for. Mr. Flora said that we did not know, it would depend on the criteria that was developed. - - - Councilman Schneider asked if the Anoka County Board or. the Anoka Housing and Redevelopment Authority made the application. He wondered if they would be prejudiced against us, as they stated it.was their intent to provide assistance in particular to those communities who do not have operating HRA Boards. He asked if our HRA had seen this proposal. Mr. Flora said they had been given this for their information. Mr. Qureshi said.Anoka County would be the one who applied for the funds directly. Mr. Flora pointed out the stipulation that 'if the City joins the County in their application for funds, we cannot submit an application on our own: The Council felt we should request a copy of the cooperative agreement for further review. MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to approve the letter .to Anoka County requesting a copy of the cooperative agreement for review regarding the possible parti- cipation in the County's Community Development Block Grant Funds Application. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.. RESOLUTION NO. 71-1980 TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR NURSERY STOCK: MOTION by Councilwoman Moses, seconded by Councilman Schneider, to adopted Resolution 71-1980 and proceed with advertising for bids. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,, Mayor Nee declared -the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES: MOT10N by Councilwoman Moses to concur with the following appointments: EFFECTIVE NAME POSITION SALARY DATE REPLACES Renee M. Kaulfuss Office Assistant $819 July 21, 1980 Janelle M. Cook 1283 W. Eldridge Police Department. per Roseville, MN 55113 Month Lynda J. Averette Clerk Typist $719. July 21, 1980 Phyllis Grotberg 8330 Terrace Road City Management per Spring.Lk. Pk., MN 55432 Month Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7 LICENSES: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ESTIMATES: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the estimates. Seconded by Council- woman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOUSE TRAIL OR LICENSE FOR LOCAL 683, UNITED AUTO WORKERS AT FMC, 4800 EAST RIVER ROAD: Local 683 requested the house trailer license to be used.in case there is a strike. at FMC. r --4732 -4 AVE. -. z Q�2.b ��5 •4-x_6 -�4Fr V A -4t IJ lo 4'� ci 4 ? , 4 6A_ z 459 � � f4oro hp t.Z All I., - Lt -J b a. 4 c) AVE. -. z Q�2.b ��5 •4-x_6 Af. V A -4t 4 A -7- Af. Al A -4t IJ ci 4 ? , 4 6A_ z 459 � � -A -4_c9 All I., 4 0 4 All 45i s. J A -4t -4 ci 4 Aso z 459 � � . N All I., Lt -J b a. 4 c) 4!a. All 45i s. A A -4t �-4 w56?, -4 S(Ag Aso 7JI-VI 459 � � -4 S-1. 4 Lt -J b a. S. w CORNER •SEC. 26 "PREARRANGEMENT 01 Oz LOTS PLATTED AS BLOCKS 13,14,15, PLYMOUTH" 45i s. A A 04 F4 A—Z Aso 459 � � 4 4 c) 4!a. S. w CORNER •SEC. 26 "PREARRANGEMENT 01 Oz LOTS PLATTED AS BLOCKS 13,14,15, PLYMOUTH"