Loading...
VAR 01.78CITY OF FRIDLEY, SUBJECT F? MINNESOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW UepGff(Vat/_Uivjsi0nl Number i Rev page Approved by Date COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST RETURN TO PLANNING R"', C)0 - FILE NO/ ADDRESS FILE "77E. jp)p DUE 12ATE.--.... ctkrc--. CYL-4 covv� ---'7-G 4C I of Fridley r 1 AT THE TOP OF fHE VMS i t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV, r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION ZiEC. 1 = � t ^"^1,CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �••^• �': J G1I.56!t 3+54 11atut Gr i 77 APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUFAPER 910-F23 NCV. 1 DATh 3/21/75 PAGE 1 of 2 APPROVED by 800 Name` ." Address *yL joK.j,l f� Phone _ Legal Description Lot No. f� Block. No. Tract o Addn. Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) aV Sa ear ao, Date Meeting Date Fee eceipt NOW signature' Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals a City Council. Action and Date Q .r r City ocFridlcy AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS i +w.--r� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. e S1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 ..___1�..i .� 612.560-3450 WNW APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS _ (Staff Report) WAOM.R 910-F23 ItEv: 1 VAIN 3/21/75 I A4E OF 2 2 AMNit©Vt!} [IV ,800 Staff Comments 1 Board members date notified, e notified of meeting by and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Name List members, Plan Date To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified 94) a ,42 10 0r -2 ACY7 --2'./2 V -,v 321t-na,c� dt)t-,r7 - -?- V-2 Cp-L _, �3y� 116 �5��- a � al- _ ____fdDLE-Y- _ __---- ---- _ _---- BOARD OF APPEALS EXHIBIT No. MEETING --BATE ° -- --- - - -%`a - -IV e -- �- -- - 0 _ ..'-. RECEIPT rig, 0/3 6431 University Ave. N.E. Tel. 571-3450 Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RECEIVED OF ADDRESS FOR �z FUND CODE AMOUNT 500 Marvin C. Brunsell Treasurer By o — r -K z 9 -LZ— No. CRC 22 90172 OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue N.E., on Tuesday, February 14, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.075, 1, E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from a lot line, from 5 feet to zero feet, to allow the continuation of existing parking as is, on Lots 14.and 15, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 5800 - 211 Street N.E., Fridley, Mn. (Request by Mr. Albin Johnson, RR #1, Box #59, Cushing, Wisconsin 54006) Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION CITY OF FRIDLEY- a APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING- FEBRUARY 14, 1978 CALL,TO ORDER: Chairperson Schnabel called the February 14, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Kemper, Schnabel, Gabel, Barna Members Absent: Plemel Others Present: Clyde Moravetz, Engineering Department APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 1978 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to approve the Appeals Commission minutes of January 24, 1978, as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.075, 1, E3, TO REDUCE'THE SETBACK FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FROM A IAT LINE, FROM 5 FEET TO ZERO FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING -PARKING AS IS, ON LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 23, HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 5800-2% STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN. (REQUEST BY MR. ALBIN JOHNSON, RR #1, BOX #59, CUSHING, WISCONSIN 54006). MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.075, 1, E3, requiring a setback of five feet from a lot line for all parking. Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to reduce visual pollution in the areas adjacent to lot lines, and separate parking with landscaped areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: To comply with the City Code as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking. Also the lost use of the existing rear yard. C. AD)IZNISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing parking at 5800-2% Street is in the side yeard to the rear of the four-plex off 58th Avenue. There are four parking stalls with parking close to both the alley and the south property line. The area is hard surfaced with fencing and curb stops for the four stalls. Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street. The possible alternative would be to park in the rear off the alley. Required stalls total 7.5, based.on a single one bedroom and three two-bedroom units. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — FEBRUARY 14, 1978 Page 2 A Mr. Moravetz said that there were some alternatives to the existing parking layout, but by using any of the alternatives, the building would lose some of its green area in the rear yard. He said that from the Staff's point of view, there were no objections to the existing parking scheme. Chairperson Schnabel indicated that the tenants were presently parking to the rear of the building. She also pointed out that there were only four parking stalls and the required was 7.5 parking stalls. Mr. Albin Johnson indicated that the parking lot was actually accomodating eight cars. Chairperson Schnabel said that the point being made was that he was to provide parking stalls for 7.5 cars according to the formula used for the number of apartments that he had. She said that the Code required 7.5 parking stalls. Chairperson Schnabel said that even though Mr. Johnson said he had accomodations for eight cars, he could only do so by encroaching onto the Boulevard property. She said that all the parking provided was not contained entirely on Mr. Johnson's property. Mr. Johnson said that to change the layout would not improve the aesthetics of his property. Mr. Moravetz said that it was Staff's opinion that as much green should be maintained as possible. He explained to the Commission each of the alternatives that had been drawn up by Staff. He said that Mr. Johnson's existing scheme was really the best plan. Mr. Barna wanted to know the depth of the parking area from the curb to the back curb—stops. Mr. Moravetz said that with the street improvement the distance would be approximately 36 feet with about 12 feet of boulevard. Mr. Johnson indicated that most of his tenants had two cars. He felt that his existing set—up was a good one. Mr. Barna asked if very many people actually used the alley. Mr. Johnson said that people from the other two apartment buildings continually use the alley. Chairperson Schnabel said that the request at hand was a request to go from five feet to zero feet from the lot line but it did not bring into account the boulevard. Mr. Moravetz said that that the side yard was being discussed in this request and not front yard. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — FEBRUARY 14, 1978 Page 3 1 Mr. Cross of 5801 -2nd Street NE, Fridley, said that he was at the meeting by mistake. He said he got a letter from the City of Fridley stating that he was not in compliance with the City Code 205.061. He said that he had contacted his attorney, and the letter was in error. Mr. Cross said that he decided to appear at the meeting anyways because Mr. Johnson owned the property across the alley from him and wanted it to be known that the alley was definitely very highly used. He said that he wanted the alley to be left open. Chairperson Schnabel said that the City carried the alley on record as. an unimproved alley. She said that to have the alley improved he would first have to get a petition of property owners on either side of the alley. Mr. Cross asked if the street improvement had been petitioned by the property owners. Chairperson Schnabel said that the street improvement project was part of a ten year program to improve all the streets in Fridley. Mr. Cross asked who was paying for the street improvement project. Ms. Gabel said that all the citizens of Fridley had to pay for it. Mr. Cross didn't feel that a person had to buy a variance when he already owned the property. Chairperson Schnabel said that the point was that the City of Fridley had a Zoning Ordinace and a Building Code book, etc. She said those codes were published in 1973. She said that that what had to be accomplished was to bring all the existing properties into compliance with the Ordinances. If the properties were found to be in non—compliance to the Ordinances, the property owners had to apply for a variance from the Code that they were in violation of. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Cross if he had talked to anyone at City Hall regarding the letter he received that was in error. Mr. Cross said that City Hall had apologized for their error. He said that.he did not accept the apology. He said that the City was in error and it was wrong what they were doing. He said that as far as the fee for variance or the subject of the alley he was going to protest strongly, because it was their property and they should not have to buy it back. .Chairperson Schnabel felt that Mr. Cross was mistaken about the term 11buying it back". She said that a person did not buy a variance. She said that a person could apply for a variance. She said there was a. fee charged on the application because there was a lot of paper work involved, and a lot of staff time involved in reviewing whatever was.being requested Mr. Cross said that he was still very concerned about the alley. He felt the alley should be improved. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 14, 1978 Page 4 16 Chairperson Schnabel said that the alley wasn't being discussed because it was an unimproved alley. She said that Mr. Johnson was not making a request to improve the alley. Mr. Cross said that he would gladly sign a petition regarding the alley improvement. Mr. Moravetz said that if Staff received a formal petition requesting the alley improvement, Council could authorize preliminary studies. He said that at that time survey crews could be called in to do the necessary surveys and an overall feasibility study could be made. Mr. Moravetz said that the petition would have to be signed by most of the people that would be effected by the alley improvement. He said that everyone would have to be in agreement because of the costs involved. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:14 P.M. Ms. Gabel said that there would be costs involved with putting in the new streets which would be assessed to the landlords and secondly there would be extensive costs involved if Mr. Johnson would be required to change his existing parking scheme. She also pointed out that by changing the existing parking area would involve the loss of some of the green area of the property. She felt that yards were just as important to tenants as they were to private home owners. She felt that Mr. Johnson should be able to keep his existing parking area. Mr. Kemper asked if the variance was being requested to allow parking in the boulevard or was the variance to reduce parking area from five feet to zero feet from the lot line. He wanted to know if they were discussing boulevard encroachment. Mr. Kemper pointed out that in reality they were discussing the boulevard encroachment because it was being admitted that cars were parking right up to the lot line. Mr. Barna expressed concern because even if the variance request was approved, Mr. Johnson still only have four legal car stalls and Code requires 7.5 parking stalls. He said what the variance should have been for was to allow parking in the boulevard, in which case then he would have had the legal number of parking stalls. .APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 1L, 12Z8 Page Mr. Kemper said that theproblem was that the variance request as it was constituted, if approved, wouldn't solve the problem. He said that the variance request was not directed properly. Chairperson Schnabel said that part of the problem was that Fridley City Code Section 205.075, General Provisions, only addressed off street parking that was prohibited in the following areas 1) Any portion of the required front yard; 2) Using over 2/3 of the required rear yard; 3) Any closer to a lot line than five feet; 4)' Any closer to a main building than five feet. She said that the.particular Section did not specify parking in boulevards. She felt that Parking in the Boulevards was the issue to be considered. Mr. Kemper wanted to know where in the City Code. it was written that a person couldn't park in the boulevard. Chairperson Schnabel indicated that as long as there was no permanent structure on the boulevard, there was nothing in the Codes that said specifically that a person could not park in the boulevard. Mr. Barna wanted to know why Mr. Johnson needed any variance. Mr. Moravetz said that the variance was needed along the West property line adjacent to the alley. Mr. Kemper asked what was to be done regarding the requirement of 7.5 parking stalls and Mr. Johnson only actually having four parking stalls. He said that if the variance was granted then what was being said was that Mr. Johnson would have eight stalls, four on his property and four on the boulevard. Mr. Kemper said that the item bothered him. Chairperson Schnabel said that there should have been a variance request to reduce the number of parking stalls from the required 7.5 stalls to four. Chairperson Schnabel suggested the tabling of the item until more research could be done on several confusing issues, She explained to Mr. Johnson that the Commission had questions dealing -with the interpretation of the Ordinance. She said that the Commission wasn't clear as to how the Ordinances addressed the subject of parking on the boulevard. She also said that perhaps Mr. Johnson should have had another variance request which would have been to reduce the number of stalls provided from 7.5 to 4, which he actually was providing. MEETING - FEBRUARY 1 Ms. Gabellexplained that tabling the item would be for Mr. Johnson's protection. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to table the request for a variance of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.075, 1, E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from a lot line, from five feet to zero feet, to allow the continuation of existing parking as is; on Lots 14 and 15, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 5800-2- Street NE, Fridley, Mn. Mr. Kemper said that he was not.ready to suggest a ruling on the request. He didn't feel that the ground rules were actually known. He said that very likely the request was worded in the manner that Staff felt it should have been worded; however, he felt that there were some loose ends that should be straightened out before any formal ruling was made. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. At the petitioner's request, Chairperson Schnabelindicated that the item would be tabled until March 282--1978. She told Mr. Johnson that it would appear as the first item on the agenda. Mr. Chairperson Schnabel asked that Staff Johnson of the',March 28, 1978., meeting. renotify Chairperson Schnabel-reiterated the questions that the als Commission had regarding the Variance Request: 1) Does the City permit parking on boulevard properties? 2) Is a Variance required to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7.5 to 4, if the City does not permit parking on boulevards? 3) Can the Appeals Commission act on a variance for parking on boulevards? Chairperson Schnabel said that with the questions the Appeals Commission wants to know the legal status of the questions because they want to know which direction to take.in terms to their recommendations to City Council. 2. D THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: W TNT! R-a'nTTT PTi'Tl OPP_ (ZT P7 -UP Lli>iM111Yu 1 f11 LL111YU 111J 1N, V 24 and 25, -BLOCK 81 HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 6021 MAIN STR7 ,T N.TA) FRIDLEY, MN. (REQUEST BY MR. M. WAARA, 6021 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN 55432). MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:47 P.M. TO S RODNEY Public carried OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: CONTINUED.FROM 2/1:4/78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, March 28, 1978 to reconsider the following matter: A request for variances of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.075, 1, E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from a lot line, from 5 feet to 0 feet, and Section 205.075, 2, A, to reduce thenumber of required off-street parking stalls from 7.5 stalls to 4 stalls, to allow the continuation of existing. parking as is, on Lots 14 and 15, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 5800 2 1/2 Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. Albin Johnson, RR #1, Box #59, Cushing, Wisconsin 54006). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Item #1, March 28, 1978 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5800 2 1/2 Street N.E. r A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.075;:1, E,3, probiting parking any closer to a lot line than 5 feet. Public purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the area adjacent to lot lines and separate parking with landscaped areas. Section 205.075, 2, A, requiringa minimum of 7.5 parking stalls for this .particular 4 plex. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate off-street parking areas for multiple dwelling 'units. B. STATED HARDSHIP: To comply -with the City Code as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking. Also the lost use of the existing rear yard. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing parking at 5800 2 1/2 Street is in the side yard to the rear of the four-plex off 58th Avenue. There are four parking stalls with parking close to both the alley and the south property line. The area is hard surfaced, with fencing and curb stops for the four stalls. Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street. The City Attorney has determined that it is`not:within the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission to discuss parking in the public right of way. However; the City Council may, if it desires, change the Code to allow the Appeals Commission to hear such requests. For these reasons, it appears that the best alternative for Mr. Johnson is to move his "parking fence" 15 feet north of its present location, and add 15 feet of additional blacktopping. This will provide for a total of 8 stalls and end the parking in the boulevard, without much lose of rear yard space. (See Map) j Jo— it$ h j f, i 0 - - - i I - -,- - - if F X I FEW, I I BOARD OF APPEALS H- M -I i i r , I�NG DATE � A MEET �'- CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Chairperson Gabel called the March 28, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Plemel, Kemper, Gabel, Barna Members Absent: Schnabel Others Present: Ron Holden, Building Inspector APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 14, 1978 MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the Appeals Commission minutes of March 14, 1978. Mr. Holden indicated that on Page 7, the seventh sentence of -the "Administrative Staff Review" should read, "Eight {8} stalls at nine feet wide would equal 72 feet of parking width on this 80 foot lot UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The minutes were approved at 7:37 P.M. 1- TABLED: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.053,1lIE3, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET TO 0 FEET, AND SECTION 205.075,2,A, TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF -REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS FROM 7.5 STALLS TO 4 STALLS, TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING PARKING AS IS, ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 23, HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 5800 2 112 STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. {REQUEST BY MR. ALBIN JOHNSON, RR 1, BOX , CUSHING, WISCONSIN 540061 - Mr. Holden explained that there was an amended Administrative Staff Report. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:39 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.075,1,E,3, prohibiting parking any closer to a lot line than five feet. Public purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in.the area adjacent to lot lines and separate parking with landscaped areas. Section 205.075,2,A, re.quiring a minimum of 7.5 parking stalls for this particular 4-plex. Public.purpose served is to provide for adequate off-street parking areas for multiple dwelling units. Vr-1.ML- a '-vI"I ING - nARCH *'8, 1978 Page 2 B. STATED HARDSHIP: To comply with the City Code as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking. Also the lost use of the existing rear yard. C- ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing parking at 5800 2 112 Street is in the side yard to the rear of the four-plex off 58th Avenue. There are four parking stalls with parking close to both the alley and the south property line. The area is hard surfaced, with fencing and curb stops for the four stalls. Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street. The City Attorney has determined that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission to discuss parking in the public right of way. However, the City Council may, if it desires, change the Code to allow the Appeals Commission to hear such requests. For these reasons, it appears that the best alternative for Mr- Johnson is to move his *parking fence" 15 feet north of its present location, and add 15 feet of additional black- topping- This will provide for a total of 8 stalls and end the parking in the boulevard, without much loss of rear yard space- {See Map}. Mr. Holden indicated that he had talked to the City Attorney and had asked him several questions for the. Appeals Commission. He asked the City Attorney if the City permitted parking in the Boulevard; and the answer had been NO. Mr. Holden asked if a variance was required to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7.5 to 4 if the City did not permit parking in the Boulevard property; and the answer had been YES. Mr- Holden asked the City Attorney if the Appeals Commission could act on the variance for parking on the boulevard properties; and the answer had been NO. Mr. Holden reiterated that the Appeals Commission could not act on the question of parking on the boulevards- He explained that.the requests that were to be handled were parking closer to the lot line than five feet; and the other was to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7.5 to 4• e e Mr. Johnson asked if he had to move the parking fence the entire 15 feet.. Mr. Holden said that it would be one way of alleviating the parking in the boulevard and also provide for eight parking stalls, which was actually needed for Mr. Johnson's building. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Page 3 0 Mr- Johnson said that his tenants were already parking eight cars in that parking lot Mr-' Holden explained that when the street improvement was completed, Mr- Johnson's boulevard would be reduced from 14 feet to ten feet. He explained that the tenants were presently parking directly behind cars and after the improvements were in, there wouldn't be room to park two -cars deep in the existent parking stalls - Vice -Chairperson Gabel indicated to the Commission that they were addressing the variance of reducing the 7.5 parking stalls to four parking stalls and parking closer to a lot line than five feet. She said that they were not addressing the question of whether or not Mr- Johnson could or could not park in the boulevard- .Mr- Holden showed Mr. Johnson and the Commission a street plan for the area. Mr. Johnson said that, since there was presently ample room for his tenants to park their cars, he could move the fence four or five feet to make up the footage that the City would take for the street improvement, and he would again have enough space for his tenants to park their cars, two-deep- Mr- Kemper said that if Mr- Johnson did not move his fence at all, and left parking as is, after the street improvement reduced his boulevard by four feet, there would be room in his parking lot for four cars- He said that those four cars would not be parking in the boulevard -He explained that that was Mr- Johnson's request - to reduce the required parking stalls from 7.5 to four. Mr- Kemper said that if the variance request to reduce the number of parking stalls was approved, it would be impossible for -the tenants of Mr- Johnson's building to park their cars two deep. Mr- Kemper said that an alternative to reducing the number of parking stalls would be to establish eight parking stalls. He said that it could be done if Mr- Johnson moved his parking lot fence 15 feet to the back of the property and paving that additional 15 feet. Mr- Johnson didn't feel that he would have to move the fence back 15 feet- He felt he would only have to move the fence a little to be sure that the cars would not protrude into the line of traffic. r s ,�, � ,J a � _ ,!r �' � r. �' �;✓ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Page 4 Mr• Kemper said that Mr• Holden is talking about moving the parking back 15 feet and Mr Johnson was talking of moving the parking back three feet• Mr- Kemper explained to Mr- Johnson that even though moving the parking back three feet would take care of the cars protruding out into the street, the cars would still need to park in the boulevard property and that was against the codes. Mr. Johnson said that he was only concerned that the cars not protrude into the traffic• Vice -Chairperson Gabel said that the Appeals Commission had to also address the fact that what he wants to do would still result in cars parking on public property and the Commission could not grant approval of parking in the boulevards• Mr• Barna said that if Mr• Johnson wanted to reduce the parking stalls from ?•5 to four• He said that if any tenant had more -than one car, it would be that person's responsibility where he parked that other car• He said that the Commission was concerned that Mr• Johnson handled everything regarding his property legally• Mr- Barna said that if Mr- Johnson did not want to reduce his parking capabilities to four cars, then he would have to enlarge the parking lot Mr• Kemper said that it had been determined by Staff that for Mr• Johnson to prov.ide parking for eight cars, he had to move the parking lot back 15 feet• Mr- Johnson said that it was a great advantage to have space to park eight cars so that the cars would be off the street and in a designated parking lot- He still didn't feel that he would have to move the parking lot back 15 feet• He said there would be plenty of room if he just moved it back five feet• He said that there was ample room presently to park 8 -cars., and if the City reduced the boulevard by four feet and he moved the fence back five feet, there would be one foot more parking area than he presently had• Vice -Chairperson Gabel explained that what Mr• Johnson was. saying was valid, but she said that what Staff had indicated would meet the codes• She said that moving the parking fence.back 15 feet would remove all the parking out of the boulevard, where it was not ^Legal^ to park a car• Mr• Johnson asked when the best time would be,tq do the upgrading of his parking lot - Mr• Holden told Mr• Johnson that he should contact the street contractors He said that since they would already be in the area working on the street, he would probably get the best ^deal^ by negotiating with the contractor that would do the street improvement•. Mr- Holden suggested that Mr. Johnson talk to. the Citi Contractor. Mr. Johnson said that he wanted to provide parking for all the tenants' cars. He still couldn't see the reason of moving the parking back 15 feet. Vice -Chairperson Gabel explained to him that in order to comply with City Codes and to provide eight parking stalls for his building, the parking lot would have to be moved back 15 feet. She indicated that he should get with Staff to try to work out a solution. MOTION by Mr- Kemper, seconded by Mr. Plemel,.to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting.aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Dearing was closed at 8.13 P.M. Vice -Chairperson Gabel said that the person owning the double bungalow across the street from the Johnson's property had called her and indicated that she had no objections to the request. Mr. Kemper addressed the request to reduce the setback for off-street parking from the required five feet to zero feet. He said that the variance was requested to keep the fence along the West property line which was presently within one foot of the lot line. .Mr. Kemper said that he had no objection to the reduction of the west lot line from five feet to zero feet. He said that he did object to the.reduction.of the parking stalls from the required 7.5 stalls to four. He said that to do so would create a potential parking/traffic problem because there would be four extra cars that would have to find another place to park. Mr. Barna said that he was reluctant to tell Mr. Johnson to move his fence back and blacktop more are thus reducing the green area of the property; however, in the particular instance he did see the need to make such a request. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna to recommend approval of the request for variance of the Fridley City Code Section 205.053,1,E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from the required five feet to zero feet. Recommended denial of the request for variance of the Fridley City Code Section 205•075,2,A to reduce the number of required off-street parking stalls from 7.5 stalls to four stalls, with the suggestion that the petitioner work with Staff to fi d an appropriate solution to legally park eight cars on his property; To allow the continuation of existing parking as is, on Lots 14 and 15, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 5800 2 1 2 Street NE, Fridley, MN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I �P, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1973 PAGE 15 his garage and had also favored screening. He said he believed the City should review the cost and include privacy fencing in the plan. He said he believed he could negotiate with the people. He said he did not want to condemn the land for the walkway. He stressed how he believed this to be an undesirable situation and he would like to avoid it. He asked for some authorization to speak with the property owners to negotiate and also for some time to do this. He explained the property being discussed as between 108 Rivers Edge Way and 112 Rivers Edge way and designated number four on the site plan. He said the proposal is the least desirable as far as the school is concerned. He said he would also look into -other plans, but it would be his recommendation to the Council to try to negotiate the Olson and Harvey route. Mayor Liebl said Councilman Nee would rather negotiate than condemn the property, and added he did not wish to tell the people the proposal was a take it or leave it condition. He said this would be a reasonable solution to the problem, trying to negotiate for a reasonable route rather than condemn. MOTION by Councilman Nee to negotiate with the Olsons 'and Harveys for a reasonable solution and route for the walkway. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unani- mously. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR DRILLING A WELL AT 5800 Vi STREET BY MR. ALBIN JOHNSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPRINKLING LAWNS ONLY: Councilman Nee suggested the City grant the request. The City Engineer said he recommended some conditions or stipulations and that would be that under no con- ditions would the water from the proposed well be connected to the public water system or be used for drinking. He said his second recommended stipulation would be that the water be inspected to see if it is not hazardous for drinking and not too close to an area ceptic tank. He said a test of the water should be made at least once a year to determine if it is safe for drinking, if it is not safe, it should be marked not safe for drinking, as children often pick up hoses and drink from them. Councilman Nee said he would like to include the condition that the water be used only for sprinkling. Mr. Johnson said sometimes there is repair work needed for the faucets and also at time the City water is colored black. He said last spring the lines had been flushed and the water did -get better. He said the location where the water is black is 5800 2nd Street, he said he was the caretaker for the property. The City Engineer said the City would again begin flushing the system when the weather warms to a point where water will not freeze on the streets when the lines are flushed. He said the City had been getting away from private wells and cep- tice tanks. Councilman Nee said he did support the stipulation that connection would not be made to the public water system. He said he did not know whether it was necessary to put the property owner through the bother of insisting on yearly inspection. He said if the property owner would agree to this stipulations, fine. He said he belj9ve4 this to be a good .idea as this type of well would decrease the enor- mous cost of the municipal water system caused by.the watering of lawns. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1973 PAGE 16 MQTION by Councilman Nee to grant the request for a well at 5800 2'j Street by Mr. Albin Johnson with the stipulation that it not be connected to the exist- ing municipal water system. Seconded by Councilman Bredier. RECEIVING NOTICE OF NORTHTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING WITH THE AREA COUNCILS ON MARCH 14, 1973, 7:30 P.M. AT BLAINE CITY HALL; MOTION by Councilman Starwalt receiving the Notice of the Nort;town Task Force Meeting with the Area Councils on March 14, 1973, at 7:30 p.m., at Blaine City Hall. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer said the meeting is basically for the Area Councilmen. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF SENATE FILE 342 AND HOUSE FILE 439 INCREASING THE LENGTH OF TRUCKS PERMITTED ON FOUR LANE HIGHWAYS: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt the resolution as listed. Mayor Liebl DECLARED THE MOTION DEAD FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Councilman Nee to table the Resolution. Seconded by Councilman Braider. Upon a voice vote, Braider, Starwalt, Utter, and Nee voting aye, Mayor Liebl abstaining, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried. Mayor Liebl said he believed this decision should be made by the State Legis- latures, not the County or the City. He said the matter that the action may have some bearing on increases of consumer price from state to state should be considered. RESOLUTION.#33-1973 - AUTHORIZING THE CHANGING OF BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND (LEGAL YEAR 1972): MOTION by Councilman Nee to adapt resolution #33-1973. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION #34-1973 - SUPPORTING HOUSE FILE 410 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE LIQUOR LICENSES FOR A MUNICIPALITY: MOTION by Councilman Nee to adopt Resolution 034-1973. Seconded by Councilman Utter: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING NOTICE OF DINNER MEETING WITH DAVID KENNEDY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M., MARCH 81 1973, GREENHAVEN COUNTRY CLUB, ANOKA; Mayor Liebl said the meeting had been rescheduled for March 22, 1973 at the Gneenhaven Country Club in Anoka. CITY moi/Y W ICLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 April 18, 1978 Albin Johnson R.R. 1, Box 59 Cushing, Wisconsin 54006 Dear Mr. Johnson, CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Re: Variances for 5800 2 1/2 St. N.E. a On April 17, 1978 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for variance with the stipulations listed below. Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. Si. eIy, ERROL1 L . S-OARDMAN CITY PLANNER JLB/de Stipulations: 1. I -love fence back 151.to ensure no parking in boulevard and to allow space for 8 cars 2. Concrete curbing 3. Blacktop surfaced driveway Concur with action taken. ®I 4 Al 3 - 17 P 1 r /5' 1 go , , I . 4 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5800 - 2331 Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.075, 1, E3, requiring a setback of 5 feet from a lot line for all parking. Public purpose.served.>by this section of the Code is to reduce visual pollution in the areas adjacent to lot lines, and separate parking with landscaped areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: To comply with. the City Code as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking. Also the lost use of the existing rear yard. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing parking at 5800 - 22� Street is in the side Yard to the rear of the four-plex off 58th Avenue. There are four parking stalls with parking close to both the alley and the south property line. The area is hard surfaced with fencing and curb stops for the four stalls. Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street. The possible alternative would be to park in the rear off the alley. Required stalls total 7.5, based on a single one bedroom and three -two bedroom units. 0 74 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1978 PAGE 4 RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1978: 1. JOHN R. DOYLE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT #78-04 441 HUGO STREET N.E.: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this request for special use permit is to permit R-1 property to be used as a parking lot for an adjacent 10 -unit multiple dwelling unit at East River Road and Hugo Street. Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing and has recommended approval of the special use permit. Mr. Sobiech pointed out the 10 -unit building will consist of 1, 3 bedroom unit; 1, efficiency, 3, 2 bedroom units and 5, 1 bedroom units. He stated there would be a garage for each unit in the building. W. Sobiech stated, with this layout of the building and parking, it would not be necessary to -access off of East River Road. He felt, if East River Road is improved, at some future date, this plan would not interfere with the parking at the apartment complex. Mr. Sobiech stated 'it has been the procedure, along the entire length of East River Road, to acquire additional easements in order to provide for any future roadway improvements in the area. He stated the easement required is 172 feet and would recommend this be part of the Council's consideration when acting on the special use permit. Mr. Sobiech felt stipulations should also be added that the drainage be worked out with the Engineering Department to made sure there are no detrimental effects to adjacent property, and that a solid wood screen fence be installed on the property. In conjunction with this special use permit, there is also a variance request to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet. Mr. Sobiech stated this variance request appears later on the Council's agenda. ' MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant Special Use Permit #78-04 with the stipulation the City be granted a 172 foot easement on property adjacent to East River Road; that the drainage plan be checked with the Engineering Department and that the required screening fence be included in the plan. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. TRI -CO ADDITION, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION P. S. #78-01, BY TRI -CO BUILDERS, SOUTH OF 72ND AVENUE AND WEST OF CENTRAL: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing for this preliminary plat for May 8 1978. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 1978: 61 A. ALBIN JOHNSON, 5800 22 STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request to allow a number of variances for property in the Hyde Park area. He stated, with the street improvement project, the City is attempting to work with the property owners in solving some of the problems of non -conforming uses. He stated the variance requests are for "0" lot line for the rear yard and reduction in the number of parking stalls. Mr. Sobiech stated, presently, some of the existing boulevard right-of-way is being used for parking. j Mr. Sobiech stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the side yard variance from the required 5 feet to "0" lot line and denied the variance to reduce the number of parking stalls. It was not, however, in the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission to discuss parking in the right-of-way. s C REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1978 PAGE 3 73 Councilman Fitzpatrick felt Little League has been around a long time and { t didn't foresee this language as a big problem. .He thought perhaps future ' improvements that would be permanent and eventually accrue to the City ! could be reviewed. I Mr. Herrick indicated language could be added to make the clause more specific and to indicate that any future improvements are to be submitted to the Council before they are installed. Councilman Hamernik felt possibly language.to the effect that this par- ticular clause would stand, if the City terminated the lease.ire stated, in that way, Little League would then be protected if there w,� an act not to renew the lease. d Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, pointed out that on the firs page of the lease, paragraph 3, it provides for renewal of the lease for an additional five years; however, on the second page, second parag)�aph from the bottom of the page, it also provides for termination of t d lease upon a 30 day written notice. Councilman Hamernik indicated he would be in f,ae%or of the City Attorney looking at this lease and clarifying language -,regarding termination and extension and also clarifying the language gfi Page 2, paragraph 2, regarding compensation. Mr. Klockers stated, according to the lase, the Little League Association has the option for renewal for an additional five years. He felt it was important to point out that the 4sociation does serve the young people in the community and intends to ful,ill their obligation. He stated, if the City intends some other use of this property, then the City would purchase the investment the Assoc ation has in the property. Mayor Nee stated the provision./for the five years, under the same terms and conditions, would apply fir the renewal, unless the Council decided there were some serious problems. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager,lindicated the Little League Association is a civic group and they havi indicated a willingness to work with the City on some of the concerns regarding parking and improvements, therefore, he would recommend the lease be,/renewed for another five years. MOTION by Councilman/Fitzpatrick to renew the Lease Agreement with the Little League Association/tor an additonal five year period. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Mr. Klockers started he understands the Council's concerns and has no qualms regarding the services provided by Little League in the past and future. He stated maybe,,A f this wasn't the best agreement for both parties, the City Attorney wouyd like to draft another lease and the Association would be willing to take a look at it. He thought perhaps they could agree on a better desJ19 ned agreement on some of the concerns the Association has and some the Council has. Councilman Hamernik stated, under the terms of the present lease, if the Association has an option to renew, he has no problem with the lease, but indicated he was a little surprised at the language contained in the lease. A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared motion carried unanimously. I REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1978 PAGE 5 Mr. Sobiech stated, from a maintenance standpoint, the City would want to insure there is enough space between the curbing and pparking areas to insure proper snow storage. He stated, if parking waS alloWed to encroach into the boulevard right-uf=way by 42 feet, it would not be necessary to use a large amount of additional space. in the back yeard for a parking lot. Mr. Sobiech asked Mr. Johnson if he had any objections to working with the street contractor regarding some improvements. Mr. Johnson stated he understands he will have to move the fence some distance, but felt this should be approached in a practical aspect and indicated he didn't want to move the fence any further than necessary. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated, under the present ordinance, parking is not allowed in the boulevard and if it is the Council's intention to allow parking in the boulevard area, he would suggest a change in the code to permit such a use, upon obtaining a .variance. Mr. Sobiech stated, in order that there not be parking in the boulevard, the Appeals Commission has recommended the fence be moved 15 feet to the North. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant the variance of a "0" lot line on the West of the property and to deny the variance for reduction in the number of parking spaces; further, that there be no parking in the boulevard right -of way. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Mayor Nee felt there still was the question of hardship and felt the fence could be moved to the East. This, however, would involve encroachment on the green area and he felt Mr. and Mrs. Johnson's building was very attractive and nicely kept and an asset to the area. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated his concern is that they don't park in the right-of-way, and his motion would require moving the fence the footage necessary to avoid parking in the boulevard. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. CLYDE AND BETTY HANSEN; 251 57TH PLACE N.E.: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated these variances are to allow parking in the front yard; to allow parking closer than the required 5 feet from a property line; to allow a garbage receptacle (dumpster) in the front rather than the rear or side ,yards; and to reduce the required parking stalls from 10.5 to 8. Mr. Sobiech stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with the stipulation that curbing be installed, the parking lot be hard surfaced and there be proper screening of the dumpster area. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the question he had was if there would be 8 useable stalls. Mr. Hansen stated it would be possible to park in front of the dumpster. Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned why the dumpster couldn't be ldcated in another area. Mr. Hansen stated he didn't know of any other place to put it as there is no alley and no room in back. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission to grant the variances to reduce the required number of parking stalls from 10.5 to 8; to allow parking in the front yard and closer than the required 5 feet from the South property line; to allow the dumpster to 75 .A. 76 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1978 PAGE 6 c remain in the front yard with screening, as recommended by the City staff, and that the parking lot be improved and curbing be installed. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee questioned if the parking lot couldn.'t be relocated. Mr. Hansen felt this would result in a tremendous loss of green area. He also felt if this was done, some of the tenants' view would be of the parking lot and others would be looking at the tops of cars. Councilman Fitzpatrick pointed out that there are trees on both side yards. Mrs. Hansen stated the property owner on the East, Mr. Janek, was opposed to a parking lot on the East as he was concerned about the drainage since he already has a water problem. Mrs. Hansen stated the property owner to the West of their building is present in the audience this evening in the event the Council had any questions. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. C. JOHN DOYLE; 441 HUGO STREET N.E.: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 32 feet. He stated this would permit better alignment of the apartment building with housing to the East. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant a variance from the required 35 feet to 32 feet for the front yard setback. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 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 MEETING OF MARCH 30, 1978: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the minutes of the Cable Television meeting of March 30, 1978. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote; all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. .TION OF RECEIVING TENNIS COURT BIDS AND REJ 1978): Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the bids received for the tennis courts were much higher than the engineer's estimates, therefore, it is requested that the bids be rejected. Mr. Qureshi stated he felt the City could get a bid price for these tennis courts, from the present low bidder for the street improvements, closer to the estimates and requested authorization to negotiate for this project. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to reject all of the following bids received for the tennis courts on the grounds that they are significaihtly higher than the estimates. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CITY OF FRIDLEY 8431 (UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 April 18; 1978 Albin Johnson R.R. 1, Box 59 Cushing, Wisconsin 54006 Dear 14r. Johnson, CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE �F Re: Variances for 5800 2 1/2 St. N.E. On April 17, 1978 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for variance with the stipulations listed below. Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. Si ely, ERROL L. BOARD, CITY PLANNER JLB/de Stipulations: 1. Hove fence back 15` to ensure no parking in boulevard and to allow space for 8 cars 2. Concrete curbing 3. Blacktop surfaced driveway -X/e—�Co/lutwith action taken. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: .Notic is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue, Northeast on Monday, May 8, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber for the purpose of: -Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA '78-04, by the City of Fridley, to establish a neva Zoning District, S-1 (Special Zoning District) and to rezone the following property to this district: Blocks 5, 6, 7 and 8, Hyde Park Addition, from R-2 (two family dwelling areas) to S-1 (special zoning district), and. Block 9. 10, 24 and 23, Hyde Park, from R-3 (general multiple family dwelling areas) to S-1 (special zoning district), and Blocks 11, 12, 21, 22,.25, 26, 27 and 28, Hyde Park from C-2 (general business areas) to S-1 (special zoning district, and Blocks 1 and 2, City View Addition, from C-2, (general business areas),to S-1 (special zoning district, all located in -the North Half of Section 23, T-30, R-24., City of Fridley,. County of Anoka, Minnesota. The purpose in creating a new zoning district is to make tse zoningconsistent ;;itr, neighborhood development. Generally located from 57th Place N.E. to 61st Avenue N.E., and University to Main Street. m Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at the above time and place. WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR Publish: April 19, 1978 April 26, 1978