SP 76-05Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1976 Page 4
r
1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-05,
INNSBRUCK NORTH REPLAT THIRD ADDITION BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION: Being a replat of Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Blocks 21 through
l 26,, and also part of Lot 1, Block 28, Innsbruck North Townhouses Third
Addition, to allow changes in the size of garages, generally located on
the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr. Boardman explained that Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation was trying
to work out some arrangements with the Townhouse Association, and requested
that this item be tabled again.
b�
Mr. Langenfeld raised the question of how long something like this could be
tabled, and Mr. Boardman replied about sixty days.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to relay something that she thought was
rather interesting to the Commission. She said that as she drove out North
Innsbruck Drive, the City of New Brighton's survey crew was surveying the road
at the Fridley border. Whether or not they were going to do anything on it,
she didn't know. She also said she wondered whether or not part of the stipulation
of the Darrel A. Farr Corporation proceeding with building the townhouses was
that they should grade out North Innsburck Drive, and said it was her understand-
ing that a culvert should be put in the low spot which water is draining into
currently. Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps since they alre<•dy have a model
built"ad it was nearing final stages, they should be reappraised of that
stipulation.
Mr. Bergman stated that each meeting they had this item on the agenda, typically
as number one, and each meeting they spent time on it. He said he would like
it removed from the agenda until Darrel Farr Corporation indicated some further
interest. Chairperson Harris said he thought because of the time element
involved, since they were getting close to the time limit when they would have
to reapply, they should table it until the next meeting.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission table
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-05, Innsbruck
North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, with
the Public Hearing open, until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Upon a'voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
construction of a second accessory building, a 24 ft.
garage, on Lots 18 and 19, Block 8, Plymouth Addition,
4715 3rd Street N.E.
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio were present.
by 32 ft. detached
the same being
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the
Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit, SP #76-11, by Joseph
Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared
the Public Hearing open at 8:00 P.M.
--a
Planning Commission Meeting - August 41, 1976 Page 3
K
Island of Peace had been given to those thirteen neighborhood project committees
to see if the -within the park area were compatible with the neighborhoods.
He added that hey were waiting for response toward the end of September on
those. Mr. Be an said ne noted there was no money indicated in the budget
toward Innsbruc North Park, and Mr. Boardman said he thought it was ,just about
completed.
MOTION by Bergmseconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning C mmission receive
the minutes of th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting o July 26, 1976.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the motion should state they could old additional
questions until the ext meeting. Chairperson Ha xris br ght to the Commission's
attention Item No. 6 the agenda, which conce/aIrperson
ewing the Parks and
Recreation Commission ' utes of July 6th and J1976, and said that
particular item could be tabled until the next eeting. Mrs. Schnabel
pointed out that the ques 'on she had asked eart the soccer field
would be included in the Ju 26th minutes, and Harris suggested
she make a note of it and br g it up at the ner meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting ayN the motion/carried unanimously.
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES; ]&L)(272 1976
Mrs. Schnabel said that she would lik to bring to the atte_.-tion of the Planning -
Commission a motion that was passed y the ppeals`Commission on the bottom of
page 19. She explained the City C cil haNerai
sedthefees within the city
recently, and it was the feeling f the membof the Appeals Commission that
on owner -occupied residential p perties the $5 fee from $15 was excessive,
and thought $25 maximum would e a sufficient fee. She explained that they
asked that the City Council r consider that one fee. Mrs. Schnabel said that
to give them an example, at heir July 27th meeting t ey had a request for
a variance of one foot by a property owner. She said was felt that for that
property owner to.pay $50 or one foot appeared to be an cessive amount of
money.
Chairperson Harris asks how those fees were arrived at, and\en
man replied.
they were arrived at a cording to Staff costs. He explained her the
variance was for one oot or one hundred feet, the same amounces had
to be sent out and t re was the same amount of work as far aperation
costs went. Mrs. Sc abel said the Appeals Commission realizi the
time. However, she said, they did feel that on that particuln ofowner-occupied res'dential properties the fee was excessive, ad no
quarrel with Indus rial or anything else. Mr. Boardman added ees were
also comparable t the community fees.
Mrs. Schnabel s d she wanted to bring it to the attention of the Planning)
Commission as a members of the Appeals Commission wanted to express their
feelings on it/. Chairperson Harris said it was so noted.
MOTION by SAnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of July 27, 1976. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
v
Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1976
Page 5
Mr. Boardman explained that this was,a request for a special use permit for a
24' X 32' detached garage. He said the applicant presently has an attached
garage to the building, and the lot -that he is on,is 80'.X 1291, which made
it about a 102000 square foot lot.* He stated that this was in the Plymouth
Addition, and there have been several requests in that area for garages of
this size. Mr. Boardman stated the applicant said he has about five cars, and
the second accessory building would be used as a garage. He added that he had
driven by the property and he had no problem with granting the application.
Mrs. Lambert stated she had driven by the property and it looked to her like
there were fences and things to the edge on either side of the property, and
asked how they proposed to get to the bark. Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would
remove the fence on the North side to get access. He added that his current
garage was on the South side, and presented the Commission with a drawing of
his proposal. He said he had too plat or survey.
Mr. Boardman said that as far as setback requirements went, Mr. Sinigaglio
would be allowed to go down to three feet on the property line with a survey,
and without a survey it would be 1�2 feet setback. Mr. Sinigaglio said he
didn't know where his lot line was, but just took it for granted the telephone
pole was the lot line. Mr. Boardman informed him that he really should get a
survey on the property before the garage was built in case a mistake was made,
as it could make a difference in selling the property.
Chairperson Harris asked what'he was planning to do with the.:garage, and Mr.
Sinigaglio replied that he had several cars that were sitting in his yard.
He said he didntt want to sell them and they were more or less deteriorating.
He explained they were vintage cars, and this was his hobby. He further
explained he couldn't get in his present garage because he kept his snowblower,
table saw, etc. in there, and he needed the extra room. Mr. Sinigaglio said
the garage would be 241 X 241, and the last 8' on the South end would be
enclosed like a patio or 4musement room.
Chairperson Harris asked if he was planning on having utilities in this
structure9 and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would have electricity. Mr. Harris
asked how large the attached garage was that he presently had, and Mr. Sinigaglio
replied the garage itself was about 18' X 24'. He explained he had a fire wall
which put a breezeway between the house and garage, and that cut down on his
garage area.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there -.was a limitation or restriction on a secondary
use building as far as combining living quarters per se and garage space. Mr.
Boardman said there was no restriction as to what it was to be used for. Mrs.
Schnabel then asked if someone could then build a secondary use building and
use it as living quarters. Mr. Boardman replied no. He explained the code
said an accessory use was something like privately -owned recreational facilities
such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc., which are for the convenience
of the residents and their guests. Chairperson Harris said he thought they
would have a hard time stretching that to living quarters.
Mr.-Langenfeld pointed out that the petitioner indicated the use of the.garage
and that is why the Special Use Permit was being requested, and if the special
use was granted then the City would have control over that particular piece of
711M Ts _1111
Planning Commission Meeting - August 4. 1976
Page 6
property. He stated he noticed that Mr. Sinigaglio had a"lot of neighbors,
and asked what their general feelings were. Mr. Sinigaglio replied that his
neighbors on both sides had asked if he had any ulterior motives for building,
but he stated he did not. He said he just wanted to get the cars out of the
yard as they were deteriorating, and stated that the neighbors said they
didn't care what he did in his back yard as long as he didn't put the garage
in the front yard. He stated he didn't believe there were any objections,.
and felt that.getting the cars out of sight would be an improvement.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what his hobby was, and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he worked
on the cars he had. He explained that parts were difficult to find, and over
the last couple of years he would buy a bumper here and a grill there. He said
he would just leave the cars in the garage and take them out when the weather
was nice. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the garage would be compatible with the rest
of the house, and ;Sr. Sinigaglio replied it would. He said it would have
vertical wood like his'home and the same roofing, and would essentially look
like a scale model of his house but it wouldn't be as long.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that he did the reconstruction for his own personal benefit,
but asked if he was in the business of doing this type of'work for other people
or doing it with the intent of reselling the automobilies. Mr. Sinigaglio
replied he was not, and said the cars were just for his own use when he felt
like it. He explained he did the work in his own garage now, but would like to
be able to jack up the car and leave it there instead of taking it up and down
every night.
Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Sinigaglio hired someone to come in and work on the
automobiles, and he answered he did not. Mr. Bergman said he had no other
concerns with regard to the general plan and concept, but was a little concerned
about the dimensional validity. He stated there was no registered survey of
the lot, and he was not sure that other than approving the concept in general
there was any more they could do prior to City Council review without verification
or dimensions.
Chairperson Harris stated they could send this on to Council with their
recommendations and stipulations, and one of those stipulations could be that
the petitioner get a survey before he goes to City Council. Mr. Boardman said
he really didn't know if they needed a survey before they got to Council. He
explained their main concern was that they don't take up more than 25% of their
lot. Mr. Harris said he thought it would save a lot of time if before this got
to Council there was a survey and all these things were checked. Mr. Langenfeld
said he would like to support the suggestion and comments regarding the survey,
and added he was sure Council would ask Mr. Sinigaglio to do that anyway.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-11, by
Joseph Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris
declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Lambert, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-11, by
Joseph Sinigaglio, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.0512 2, A, to allow the
.arming Commission Meeting —August 4, 1976 -
Page 7
construction of a second accessory building, a 24 ft. by 32 ft. detached
garage, on Lots 18 and 19, Block 8, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4715
3rd Street N.E., indicating general concurrence with the request and the
proposed construction and usage, but subject to a dimensional verification
through lot survey prior to City Council review.
Mr. Langenfeld said he tended to want to indicate "if possible". He said he
got the feeling they were pushing these people for a survey, and they should
have one, but wondered what would happen if they couldn't come up with one
before this went to Council on August 16th. Chairperson Harris said they
could leave it as one of their stipulations, and if the City Council wanted
to change that, it was their prerogative. Mr. Harris said he would like to
recommend that the :notion include something about limitation of the structure
for any future use as a home occupation. Mr. Bergman said he was open to that
thought, and asked if that wasn't adequately covered in the present, ordinance.
Mr. Boardman said that no accessory building could be used as home occupation,
but there were some around.. Mr. Harris said that some time down the line Mr.
Sinigaglio may desire to sell his home or get out of the classic car storage
business, and he would like to make it clear to everyone involved that the
accessory building could not be used as a cabinet shop, body repair shop, etc.
He stated he felt it would not hurt to state it as a stipulation in the
recommendation so everyone involved would be clear on the matter.
Mr. Bergman *,'-,.!ENDED the MOTION to include limitin the acce $-o '^'�=^g
use to exclude home occupation Seconded by Lambert.
Chairperson Harris wondered if it would be necessary to include in the motion
something about the garage being con atibl_e with th e ting t ucti Mr.
Bergman said that the pei loner had stated it would be, and that discussion
would be in the minutes for reading by Council. Mr. Harris said the problem
was that when they got down the line at a later period, sometimes the discussion
parts were omitted and the only thing that can be found is the motion with the
stipulations. Mr. Bergman asked if there wasn't some type of incentive
provided to the owner to make the aesthetic treatment consistent at the time
he applied for the building permit. He said that regardless of what the
Commission said, the building permit process was where it really happened.
Mr. Boardman said that was usually a stipulation on the building permit.
....-�a:.--
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 8:55 P.M.
3. RECEIVE MEMO FROM MAYOR NEE TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: DATED JULY 152 1976
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the memo from mayor Nee to the Appeals Commission dated July 15, 1976.
Mr. Boardman said that studies show that only about 25% of families can afford
housing the way it is now. He stated that there would be some point in time
when these 40' lots would have to be usedand the present standards would have
5
Planning Commission Meeting - August 49 1976
Page 8,.
CLI
to be dropped or changed so that people would be able to afford housing. H
that right now about 75% of the families were really struggling in buying h
which they really can't afford because they can't find.a needed home in a ]
price range. _
Mr. Bergman said he recalled the 40' lot consideration which was brought to the
Planning Commission's attention from the Board of Appeals based onia pending
variance request. The Planning Commission, he said, then sent the question to
the subcomnissions to come back to the Planning Commission with regard to policy.
Mr. Bergman said that Community Development was one of those that reviewed
whether or not 40' lots should be considered developable lots for housing, and
they communicated back to the Planning Commission, as did a couple other
Commissions, and the Planning Commission then pulled together or endorsed a
policy -type situation in that regard. He asked if it was the Planning Commission
dialogue that Bill Nee was referencing in his letter, or if it was something else.
Mrs. Schnabel answered that it wasn't really clear, but she thought it was the
Appeals Commission minutes of June 15th that prompted the letter. She stated
she would like to review for everybody's benefit what has happened in order to
help clear the matter up a bit. She said that on February 10, 1976, the Appeals
Commission received a request for variance from a Mr. Denis L. Villella to
construct a residential dwelling on a 40' lot. At that time the Appeals
Commission decided that since this was the first request to build on a 40' lot,
they should perhaps request the Planning Commission and other subcommissions
to try to develop some type o:" policy statement regarding 40' lots. She said
the words "policy statement" came about because in reviewing the Administrative
Staff Report to the Appeals Commission on that request, the remarks said something
about city policy statement. She commented that the term got to be used a bit
loosly, but it got to be used.
Mrs. Schnabel continued that on March 9, 1976, the Community Development
Commission reviewed 40' lots, on March 11th it was reviewed by Human Resources
and on March 23rd by the Fridley Environmental Quality Commission. She stated
that on April 7th the Planning Commission received the minutes from the three
subcommissions and on April 27th the Appeals Commission received the guidelines
from the City Council. The City Council received those guidelines prior to
April 27th from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel explained that once
the Appeals Commission received those guidelines on April 27th from the City
Council, they removed the request from Mr. Denis Villella from the table.
Mr. Bergman asked from what body the Appeals Commission received those guidelines,
and Mrs. Schnabel answered from the City Council. She explained that the three
subcommissions came to the Planning Commission with their recommendations, and
the Planning Commission developed tentative guidelines which were sent to the
City Council for their approval. She stated that the Council held two discussions
on that, as she recalled. She believed one was during their informal meeting and
the second was at a regular Council meeting, and they sent their recommendations,
which were not exactly in a finalized form but in a sense the approved tentative
guidelines of the Planning Commission, back to the Appeals Commission.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that on April 27th the Appeals Commission acted on the
request to build on a 40' lot. Mr. Villella.had made six requests for variances,
and the Appeals Commission approved four of the six and denied two, and passed
130
REGULAR.000NCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1976 PAGE 6
JOSEPH SINIGAGLIO, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP#76-11, 4715 3RD STREET:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this was a request for a special
use permit which would allow a second accessory building on an existing single
i family residence and the Planning Commission did recommend approval. He pointed
out that several stipulations existed. Mr. Sinigaglio,4715 3rd Street Northeast,
was present and stated that his expenses are over and above what the garage cost.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that the request cost Mr. Sinigaglio $120.00.
I
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission that the special use permit be granted. Seconded by Councilwoman
Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
40' LOTS:
Mayor Nee stated that he planned to set a special meeting regarding this matter.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated that a meeting would be set up approximately six
weeks from this date.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of August 4, 1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO WAIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISION IN SIGN ORDINANCE FOR
LIMITED TIME, SCHAAF VOLUNTEER COMMITTEE:
Mr. Robert Meek, the Schaaf Campaign Manager, stated that he was requesting the City
Council to waive enforcement of the ordinance that limits the size of political
signs until the Committee has had the opportunity to exhaust its efforts for appeal
through the Appeals Commission. Councilman Hamernik stated that a good deal of work
has been done regarding the sign ordinance and allowing a variance would set a
precedent which would invalidate anything that is in the ordinance; and he, therefore,
questioned the consideration of this.
A visitor stated that there were three members of the City Council who are on
Mr. Schaaf's Campaign Committee and she felt that there would be a conflict of interest
as to Council voting on this.
Mr. Wayne Wellan, 6793 Overton Drive Northeast, spoke against the request. Councilman
Fitzpatrick stated that he was not sure that the benefit of the sign was going to be as
great now with the publicity against the ordinance that perhaps would cause an
unfavorable reaction. Senator Dave Schaaf then stated that he would withdraw the
request at this time. Councilman Starwalt then asked Senator Schaaf if he would prefer
to withdraw or table the request. Senator Schaaf responded that he already withdrew.
® RECESS:
Mayor Nee called a recess at 10:45 p.m.
RECONVENED:
Mayor Nee reconvened the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO .ALLOW A ONE FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO A DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENT AT 7348 SYMPHONY STREET:
CONSIDERATI.ON OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO A DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENT AT 7358 SYMPHONY STREET:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to take Item numbers 12 and 13 in the agenda out of
order. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
129
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1976 PAGE 5 !
RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COtM1ISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1976:
CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS COMMISSI014 MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1976:
MR. BURKHOLDER. 106 77TH WAY N.E.:
Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this is a request for parking
in the front yard, located at 77th Way and East River Road. He further pointed
out that the Appeals Commission did consider this item and did recommend approval
of the front yard parking in the area. He stated that Mr. Burkholder, 7860 Alden
Way N.E. was present to discuss the situation. Mr. Sobiech then proceeded to
discuss the fact that there exists two apartment buildings: one on which the
variance request is petitioned for and has approximately three parking spaces, and
the other building to the west of it presently has parking in the front yard area.
The petitioner does own the parcel of property in question. Mr. Sobiech stated
that perhaps arrangements could be made whereby certain parking facilities could
be planned cooperatively for the total area. He further pointed out that the
situation has been complicated especially along 77th Way by the requests for "no
parking" signs. Mr. Burkholder then commented that there was just no place to go.
He stated that he was surrounded by commercial property and a sea of black top.
He suggested that he would be agreeable to screen between the parking and the
street. He noted that a complaint was made by Donna Anderson of 160 77th Way
N.E. requesting the "no parking anytime" signs posted on 77th Way
Councilman Hamernik voiced his concern for setting a precedent which would
allow front yard parking. Councilman Fitzpatrick shared his concern. Mr. Qureshi,
City Manager, suggested that Mr. Burkholder contact Barry Blower Company and see
if some mutual agreement could be made. If not, the City Council could authorize
a variance.
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table this item until the September 13, 1976,
Regular Council meeting and see if acceptable alternatives can be worked out.
Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
TOWN CRIER PANCAKE HOUSE, 7730 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this was a request for a variance
from 100 sq. ft. to 108 sq. ft. The existing sign being 96 sq. ft. Approval
was recommended by the Appeals Commission. Mr. Craig Vargo, 7730 University
Avenue Northeast, then spoke to the City Council and proceeded to show them a
drawing of the sign.
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation
and approve the variance with stipulations. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE FEE SCHEDULE:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that the Chairman of the Appeals
Commission, Ms. Virginia Schnabel, did contact him to ensure this item came
before the City Council. After discussion with her, Mr. Sobiech stated that
he believed there was a misunderstanding as to how the increased fee was
arrived at. Apparently, the comments by the Appeals Commission regarding the
fee increase came after the variance request for a 1 ft. variance on residential
j property. Consequently, the increased fee of $50.00 vs. what was originally
$15.00 was questioned with this particular residential zoning variance request.
Mr. Sobiech stated that he explained to Ms. Schnabel how the increased fee was
arrived at, based on an average of variance requests on small lots of great
magnitude. He further stated that he indicated to Mrs. Schnabel that he would
explain to the City Council and that Council would perhaps direct the Staff to
prepare a more in-depth explanation to the Appeals Comnission. He then asked
if there was a representative of the Appeals Commission present, and Ms. Patricia
Gabel responded that she was. Mr. Sobiech asked her if his discussion explained
what perhaps happened at the Commission's meeting and she responded it did.
Ms. Gable suggested that perhaps what was needed was a breakdown. Mayor Nee
then stated that the City Council will try and justify this to the Appeals
Commission.
'3'N is s*£
,__.,.__
39tl?I{f� Q3 7 1L
Hd3SOP 011 -94115