SP 79-02.PLAIVTIII`IG doth ISSION 14EETITTG MARCH- 21197 PAGE 4
4. PUBLIC HEARTIZ:
—^" n nrmn r nt T io. M IDUTM
SP 79 02 BY VIN K RST: Per ection 205.051., 2., Ay of the Fridley City
ode, to allow the construction of a second accessory building for storage
of an antique automobile., on Lot 11., Block 2., Rice Creek Terrace Plot 4., the
same being 68gl 7th Street
MOTIOPd by Mr. Oquist., seconded by Ms. Suhrbier., to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
AT 7:50 P.M.
his. Gabel stated the correct address was 6841 7th Street ISE., not 6871.
Mr. Leek stated that after Staff Review., Staff had one concern. He referred to
Page 39 of the agenda book and stated there was no planned entrance to the pro-
posed garage for the storage of that automobile. Staff was concerned that if at
sometime an entrance was planned., the side yard which exists for that purpose and
the rear yard which exists for that purpose was rather small. They were also
concerned regarding a change of ownership in the future., so they would like to
see the petitioner attempt to get easement from his neighbor in the event an entrance
to the garage was proposed in the future. The other comment from Staff was that
the proposed accessory structure is somewhat larger than they would recommend.
Mr. Korst asked what the Staff would recommend in regards to size.
Mr. Leek stated he believed Staff wanted approximately 300 square feet.
Mr. Harris stated 300 square feet would be about 15 x 20.
Nm. Korst stated he had originally planned to make it 20 x 22., but found it was
just as economical to go 22 x 22.
Mr. Leek stated that in the proposed changes to the zoning code., they would be
looking at 240 square feet as a maximum without a Special Use Permit. Anything
over that would require a Special Use Permit to a maximum size of 440 square feet.
Mr. Harris stated that would be 20 x 20.
W. Korst stated 20 x 20 wou).d not be a problem. His intention was not to have a
driveway because the cars don't go in or out that often. He would not use them
if it was snowing or raining. He uses them maybe three times a year.
Ms. Gabel stated it didn't look like there was enough room bettgeen the existing
garage and the fence to get the cars through., especially in the winter.
Mr. Korst stated there was., and he would not take the cars out in the winter.
Ms. Gabel asked about the trees in the backyard.
Mr. Korst stated they would not remove any of the trees.
PLANNING COAMISSIOId NMITJG, MARCH 211 1279 - PAGE 5
Mr. Langenfeld asked why he would need a Special. Use Permit, if the exiling
garage was attached to the residence,
Mr. Harris stated the attached garage Was considered an accessory building, so
this proposed garage would be a second accessory building.
Ms. Suhrbier asked if he would be storing two antique cars there.
Mr. Korst stated he would. Presently, the cars were being stored at different
places, one in an apartment garage he rented for that purpose. He was worried
it would be stolen from there.
Mr. Oquist asked if he would add a service area to the garage.
Mr. Korst stated he would not.
Mr. Oquist asked if he had 9 feet between the lot line and the existing garage.
Mr. Korst stated that was correct, and he had 10 feet on the other side of the
house.
Mr. Oquist stated that 9 feet would be adequate to get the car through.
Ms. Gabel stated that with a lot of snow it would be difficult.
Mr. Korst stated he had thought about putting in a pole on the fence so he could
move the gate if need be, but he does not plan to take the cars out in the winter.
Mr. David Cool., 6M Washington St. N.E., stated his property was east of Mr.
Korsts' property, and his back yard was adjacent to proposed structure. Mr. Cook
stated he had as patio and porch in his back yard. Currentlyy, Mr. Korsts' property
is landscaped with shrubs and trees, and Mr. Cook's concern was that a structure
like this would detract from not only the aesthetic beauty of the property, but
would also have a negative impact on the real estate value of the adjacent property.
A'tt•. Cook stated he had a real estate agent give him an opinion, and his opinion was
that it would detract from the real estate value. If that is true, he would not
be in favor of a structure of this size being adjacent to his property. Mr. Cook
asked that when the Commission makes their decision, he would like them to consider
what their recommendation would be if that structure was in their back yard.
Ms. Suhrbier asked what the exterior of the proposed structure would be.
Mr. Korst stated he would use am+asonite siding and match it to the trim color
on his house.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what the height of the garage would be.
Mr. Korst stated it would have 8 foot studs and standard 22 degree truss. He
did not want to make it any bigger than necessary.
pLANP M COMMISSION MATING MARCH 2.1 1979 - _ -- - PAGE 6 ,
Mr. Storla asked Mr. Leek if the petitioner got the suggested easement from his
neighbor, could he or a future owner pave that area for a driveway.
Ms. Gabel asked if he could take it up to the property line.
Mr. Harris stated they required the driveway to be 18 inches from the property line.
Also, they require it to be 2 feet from the house.
Mr. Storla stated that would then leave less than 6 feet, approximately 5118". Could
he pave that.
Mr. Leek stated that looking at it now, he could pave it.
Mr. Korst stated there was a concrete sidewalk up to house. '3
Ms. Suhrbier asked if he would be doing car repair or rebuilding.
Mr. Korst stated there would be some, but it would not be a junk yard with fenders
and junk lying around. He keeps his yard up and would continue to do so.
Mr. Harris explained to the petitioner that a, Special Use Permit is issued to the
property, not to the person requesting it, and it stays with the property.
Mr. Langenfeld read the following in regards to Special Use Permits: "If evidence
is presented at the hearing that the requested use is compatible with the basic
use :authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health,
safety or general welfare of the area effected or the community as a whole, and
complies with such other standards as specified in Section 205.04 the Special Use
Permit should be granted and a denial would be deemed arbitrary, unlawful, and in
violation of the applicants constitutional rights." Mr. Langenfeld stated he brought
this up to point out the fact that it would be very difficult in this case deny a
Special Use Permit.
Mr. Korst stated that he intends to make the building attractive to his home.
Ms. Gabel asked if he had stated he would go with a 20 x 20 rather than a 22 x 22.
Mr. Korst stated he would be very willing to go with a 20 x 20.
Mr. Harris asked if there would be any paving.
Mr. Korst stated he would have a 3 foot apron.
Ms. Suhrbier asked if that wouldn't ruin the grass, not having a paved driveway.
Even taking the car out only occasionally.
Mr. Korst stated he would not take the car out when it was wet.
Mr. Oquist asked if Mr. Korst had considered landscaping around the building.
Mr. Korst stated he would landscape if necessary.
P
PLANNING COYMSSION MMTING, MARCH 212 1979 - PACE 7
Mr. Oquist stated he was thinking of some large shrub across the back that would
help to hide the building, and make it more attractive.
Mr. Korst stated he could put it on the other side of the fence, on the easement.
Mr. Oquist asked if he would have 2 feet between the garage and the fence.
Mr. Korst stated there would be 3 feet counting the other side of the fence. He
stated he was not trying to antagonize any neighbors.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that Special Use Permits were subject to annual review, and
he would like to emphasize the control on Special Use Permits involved here.
Mr. Storla stated he felt resale value could be a reason to dewy, if, it effects
aesthetics to the point of diminishing the neighbors property value.
Mr. Korst stated there were other houses in the block that had garages set back
from the houses.
Mr. Storla asked how many buildings, in the immediate area, were set on the back
of the lots.
Mr. Yorst, stated he was not sure.
Ms. Joan Klockus, 6830 Washington St. NE, stated she felt the same as the Cooks,
and they do use their bask yard and would not like to see a detached garage. There
are some across the street. She stated she did not want to spend the sinner looking
at this'big building. She did not want to cause any problems., but would like to
have a real estate agent come out and tell her if this would detract from the sale
of her house.
Ms. Suhrbier asked if there were detached garages across the street from her.
Ms. Klockus stated there were some on the other side of Washington, but not
on their side of the street.
Mr. Harris stated he was concerned about the future, when and if Mr. Korst decided
to sell his cars or dwellings they would be left with a second accessory building
on the back of a lot with a 9 foot access, which is pretty tight. Mr. Harris stated
he was not sure how that would caffect the.neighbor to the north. He asked Mr. Korst
if he had approached his neighbor for an easement.
Mr. Korst stated he had not.
Mr. Harris stated his concern was that the next owner would want to use it as a
garage, and with only 9 feet of access, it would be a problem.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the petition read "second accessory building for storage
of an antique automobile" and if that intended use then used$ it would have to come
before Council.
5
PLANNING COMSSION MTING2 MARCH 212 1979 - PAGE 8
Mr. Harris stated it wouldn't really' because the building would be existing and It
used for storing automobiles, so how could they deny an existing use.
Ms. Suhrbier asked if they wanted to turn it into a regular garage, couldn't they
put in a 5 foot driveway.
Mr. Harris stated that was the problem. In practicality, they would need all of
the nine feet they could get. He asked Mr. Korst if the fence there was his.
Mr. Korst stated it was.
Ms. Gabel stated it would seem to her that that's where they would draw the line,
because they couldn't have a driveway wide enough to permit using it as a garage.
Mr. Harris stated he was concerned about allowing a building that was in fact a
garage without access to get into it.
Ms. Gabel stated that future buyers would have to understand that the building was
for storage, not for a garage.
Mr. Harris stated they would use it as a garage anyway.
Mr. Langenfeld stated at that point they could have a problem with the health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding area.
Mr. Storla asked if there was a minimum width for driveways.
W. Harris stated it would have to be at least 8 feet because that's how wide cars
are, but our code would not allow it in this case because there must be 18 inches
between the property line and the driveway and 2 feet between the house and the
driveway.
Mr. Leek stated there was no stipulation in the code for the width of the driveway.
Mr. Storla stated it would be allowed then for them to put in a smaller driveway.
Mr. Harris noted that the house was set 57 feet back from 7th Street.
Mr. Korst stated there was no way he could put it in front of the house.
Ms. Suhrbier asked what the style of the house was.
Mr. Korst stated it was a two story with a roof slanting down in front.
Ms. Gabel noted that all the houses on that block were setback the same, so then
there would be a variance problem, and she felt it would look bad to build in front
of that house.
Mr. Korst showed the Commissioners a picture of his house.
pLAYMM COMMISSION MEETINGI MARCH 21, 1979 - PAGE 9
Mr. Storla asked if he couldn't have the proposed garage closer to his home.
Mr. Korst stated that 5 feet either way would not mace any difference., also., it
would be very tight.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what kind of hardship the petitioner would face if the request
was denied.
Mr. Korst stated he was presently pawing $40.00 a month to rent a garage to store
the car and also had the worry that it might be stolen. Alsop he is storing one
car in his present gsragep so his other car sits out everyday.
. Mr. Korst stated that when he purchased the housep there
was talky not from City Hall., but he heard somewhere, that he could get an easement
to put a garage there. He could put a driveway on the other side of the house., but
then his back yard would look like a parking lot.
Mr. Harris stated that was not a good idea.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that 25 property owners were notified and only two were at
the meeting. He asked if there were comments from other neighbors.
Mr. Korst stated he had heard no complaints from his next door neighbor., or any of
the other neighbors.
Ms. Klockus stated that the building would only effect the people behind himp not
the people in front., and there were only six house behind him.
MOTION by Yw. Langenfeld., seconded by Ms. Gabel to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAIJ HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC FEARING
CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M.
Ms. Suhrbier stated it was a very nice area., and would not like to see an extra
building in back.
Ms. Gabel stated she could not imagine anyone trying to put a driveway in there.
Mr. Langenfeld stated there were many things to consider., the right of the property
owner and the rights of the people in the surrounding area.. the futurep aestheticsj,
and also the rules regarding Special Use Permits.
Ms. Suhrbier stated that if the house were soldp a real estate agent could list it
as a three -car garage.
OTs. Gabel stated that would depend on if there was a driveway there.
NX. Langenfeld stated he did not feel there were sufficient grounds for denial
of a Special Use Permitil and emphazied that the building was for storage of an
antique automobile.
PLANNING COMUSSION MF,L`rING, MARCH 212 1979 - PAGE 10
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to recommend to Council approval
of the request for a Special. Use Permit, SP #79®02, By Irvin Korst: Per Section
205.0512 2, A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a second
accessory building for storage of an antique automobile, on Lot 11, Block 2, Rice
Creek Terrace Plot 4, the same being 68+1 7th Street N.E., with the following
stipulations: no driveway will be permitted now or in the future, the building
size will be 20 x 2fl, and andscapi.ng with shrubs be done behind the building to
Mmin-qte visual uollution. These stipulations were incorporated to the motio;
..
Ms. Gabel stated she would like the stipulation in the motion that no driveway
would be added to go into the back yard.
Mr. Harris stated they would probably not put a driveway in, but would just drive
on the grass.
Ms. Gabel stated it would be extremely difficult for someone to get back there in
the winter without a paved surface, because of the incline.
Mr. Storla stated the building would then be impractical unless a person had antique
cars to store there.
Mr. Harris stated it would unless they had a stipulation that the building could not
be used for anything other than storage.
W. Langenfeld stated that was why he had stressed accessog storage building.
Ms. Gabel stated she would like to amend the motion to include the stipulation
that there be no driveway.
Mr. Oquist asked if then, technically., would he be able to use that area to get
into his garage.
Ms. Gabel stated she meant a paved driveway.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that in regards to the driveway, when they place stipulations
as a means of control they are placing a dictatorial type of hardship on the petitioner.
Ms. Gabel noted that Mr. Krost did not want to put in a paved driveway.
Ms. Suhrbier asked how much the garage would cost.
Mr. Krost stated it would cost about $3,500 to $4,000.
Mr. Leek stated that the code requires a driveway be either hard surfaced or gravel,
so if they stipulate driveway, that would be enough.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would allow the incorporation of that amendment.
Mr. Storla stated that was saying they could use it as a driveway, as long as they
don't improve it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 21� 1979 - PAGE 11
t
?is. Gabel stated she agreed with Mr. Langenfeld, that they did not have sufficient
grounds to deny this request.
Ms. Suhrbier stated she did not like to see extra garages going up around Fridley
for storage purposes.
Mr. Oquist asked if they would stipulate that the garage be 20 x 20.
Ms. Gabel stated that Mr. Korst had agreed to that, but would agree to make it a
stipulation if it was agreeable to Mr. Langenfeld.
Mr. Langenfeld geed.
Mr. Cook asked if the Commissioners would consider requiring some type of shrubbery
to beautify the back of the building.
Mr. Oquist stated that if the garage was 20 x 20, he would have 4 feet behind the
garage to plant shrubbery.
Mr. Cook asked they be more specific as to what percent of the back would be covered,.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would amend the motion to include shrubbery but only to the
point where it would eliminate visual pollution. He did not feel they could stipulate
a certain percentage.
Mr. Oquist agreed' and suggested that pine trees would make good coverage.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. LANGENFELD, MS. GABEL AND MR. OQUIST VOTING AYE, AND M.R. HARRIS,
MS. SUERBIER, AND MR. STORLA VOTING NAY., CHAIP1,9AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED
WITHOUT A CLEAR MAJORITY.
Mr. Harris asked if there was another motion.
There were no further motions.
Mr. Harris stated the request would be sent to Council without a recommendation. He
informed the audience and petitioner that this item would appear at Vae p
Council meeting and suggested that all interested parties be there.
5. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT L.S. -,79-017 BY MARVIN AND ROBERT ERICKSON:
Split off the Westerly -74.99 of Lot 10, Auditorvs Subdivision No. bg,, to make
two building sites for double bungalows, the same being 1385-87 and 1295-97
Norton Avenue N.E.
Mr. Leek stated that the petitioner had requested the item remain tabled at this
meeting.
6. COIaTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to continue this item until the
en(r'Z the meeting. _
UPON A VOICE VOTE,, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 21, 1979 - PAGE 12
N
7. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 20, 1979:
MOTION by Pis. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to receive the February 20, 1979,
minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTLM AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 1, 1979:
MOTION by Mr. Storla, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the March 10 1979, minutes
of the Human Resource Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTES ALL VOTING AYEp CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE APPEALS C0I4USSION MINUTES: MARCH 13: 1979:
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the March 13, 1979,
minutes of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. OTHER; BUSINESS:
Mr. Langenfeld stated that in order to purchase a tape recorder, a motion must be
made directly to Council, because that is considered a capital expenditure.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 8:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
11. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
2o5.o44 LOT PROVISIONS
Page 13, #6• Appeals Commission had recommended this be changed to read: "Where
the front yard setback of existing buildings within a distance of 100 feet on both
sides of a structure to be erected is more than the minimum fron yard setback re-
quired, then the setback for the said building could be 6 feet less of the mean
depth. (delete words "more or") In no case shall it be less than the required
minimum setback for that zone." (add the word "minimum!')
The Commissioners concurred.
205.o45 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AMID STRUCTURES
Mr. Harris noted there were a lot of additions to this section.
Mr. Leek stated that in general, the sense of the changes was to increase the accept-
ability of accessory buildings to the neighbors by increasing the distances from
lot lines and things like that.
107
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1979 PAGE 3
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this item for
May 14, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
X2. IRVIN KORST, SP #79-02, 6841 7TH STREET:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a special
use permit to allow an accessory building in an existing residential area. He
stated the Planning Commission made a motion to recommend approval of the
special use permit with the stipulations that no driveway will be permitted
now or in the future; that the building size would be 20 x 20 feet; and that
landscaping with shrubs be done behind the building to eliminate visual pollution.
However, when a vote was taken on the motion, it was a 3-3 tie and so this item
was passed along to the Council with no recommendation.
Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission Chairman had indicated this item
would be before Council on April 9, however, the persons objecting to this
special use permit were at the City Hall this evening for another meeting and
are available for any further comment.
Mrs. Korst explained they are requesting the special use permit in order to
permit an accessory building to house their antique automobiles. She stated,
as far as an easement, the property owners to the North have agreed that they
could obtain the easement for driveway purposes.
Councilwoman Moses pointed out that when this item was before the Planning
Commission, the applicant hadn't talked with his neighbor about the easement
and have since obtained permission for the easement.
Mrs. Korst stated they do not intend to put in a driveway, however, in the
event they should sell their property, they would have the easement for the
driveway.
Councilman Schneider asked if there was reason to prohibit the driveway, if
an easement is obtained.
Mr. Sobiech stated, if the driveway were prohibited, this would insure that
the accessory building would only be used for storage and not a general garage.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, felt, if there are restrictions on the property
that aren't apparent to a prospective buyer, an affidavit should be filed.
Councilwoman Moses stated she talked with Dick Harris, Chairman of the Planning
Commission, regarding his feelings on this item, since the property owners
could obtain an easement from their neighbor. She stated that the Planning
Commission had three concerns; the driveway because of no easement, the size
of the building, and the landscaping. She felt Mr. Harris would be in favor
of the special use permit, if these three conditions were satisfactorily
resolved.
Mr. David Cook, 6840 Washington Street, stated his only concern is that some
type of landscaping be put in to soften the blow. He felt, as long as there
is adequate landscaping, he would have no problem with the structure. He
explained that he felt "adequate" was not a two foot high bush, but something
more substantial to screen the structure.
Mr. Darwin Klockers, 6830 Washington Street, stated he would like assurances
that the landscaping would be maintained to effectively screen the accessory
building from their properties.
Councilwoman Moses felt, since the Korst's could obtain the easement for a
driveway, this should be permitted in the future.
Mr. Klockers felt, as far as the use of the easement for driveway purposes,
he would prefer that a restriction be imposed which would not permit this use.
He felt this would lessen the danger of eroding the scheme of the neighborhood.
Mr. Klockers indicated he would like the special use permit to be as limited
as possible as the Korst's have indicated they would not need the driveway. He
felt, by permitting the driveway, the structure would have a t
use as a garage structure for a residence.
108
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1979 PAGE 4
Councilman Barnette stated he talked with Mr. Korst regarding this matter
and he didn't see the need for a driveway.
Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned the need to acquire an easement, if they
were not going to allow a driveway.
Mrs. Korst indicated they didn't need the easement for their purposes, but
were only trying to satisfy the Commission and Council, if this is what they
required.
Mr. Sobiech stated, if this building will not be a typical garage and used
only'for storage, the easement wouldn't be necessary. He pointed out that
second accessory buildings sometimes tend to become actual garages and then
it would be necessary to have the easement for driveway purposes.
Councilwoman Moses stated her concern was for the prospective future buyer
of the property who would be buying a house with a two car garage and not
be able to use the building in the back yard.
Mr. Herrick stated, if the special use permit is approved with the stipulation
that no driveway would be permitted, it would be necessary for the owners to
come back to the Council to request modification of the special use permit, if
they wished to construct a driveway.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to grant SP #79-02 with the stipulation that proper
landscaping be installed and maintained; that the size of the second accessory
building be 20 x 20 feet; that no driveway will be constructed without modifica-
tion of this special use permit; and that an affidavit be filed with Anoka
County to indicate that no driveway would be permitted. Seconded by Councilman
Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
3. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1979:
A. RONALD SKOTAK, 534 FAIRMONT STREET N.E.:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a variance to
reduce the minimum lot area from 7,500 square feet to 6,750 square feet and to
reduce the side yard setback on the living side of the house from 10 feet to
7.48 feet to allow construction of a new dwelling and garage at 534 Fairmont
Street.
Mr. Sobiech stated the Appeals Commission heard this matter and since there
was an objection from a neighboring property owner, it is now before the
Council for consideration.
Mr. Sobiech pointed out there have been variances of this nature granted in
the area.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the
Appeals Commission and grant the variances to Ronald Skotak, 534 Fairmont Street
N.E. because the two plats joining here cause an odd -shaped lot and in order to
utilize the lot properly, the variance is needed. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of March 21, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF MUNN'S HILLCREST ADDITION (P.S. #78-05):
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated reapproval is requested in order
to meet the time limits for filing the plat. He further stated a new developer
is involved who will proceed with installation of a pipe from the proposed
ponding area into Locke Lake, utilizing the railroad right-of-way.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to reapprove P.S. #78-05 for Munn's Hillcrest
Addition. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
r
V
r
0431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 56432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
CITY COUNCIL April 5, 1979
/ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Korst
6841 7th Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
'Dear Mr. & Mrs. Korst:
On April 2, 1979 , the Fridley City Council
officially approved your request for SpeciaT Use Permit SP #79-02 for a second
with the stipulations listed below. accessory wilding
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, an?,
return one copy to the City of Fridley.
If you hive any questions regarding the above action, please call
the Community Developr,ent Office at 571-3450.
Sin y,
�ROLD L. BOARDMA
CITY PLANNIER
JLB/de
Stipulations:
1. Size of garage be limited to 20'x20'
2. Landscaping be provided along garage adjecent to neighboring properties,
and properly maintained.
3. No driveway will be permitted. Affidavit indicating such will be recorded
at the County.
Concur with action taken.
0"11,17YMLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
June 8, 1981
Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Korst
5841 - 7th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Special Use Permit #79-02
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Korst:
The City has received an inquiry about the stipulation to landscape
between your detached accessory building and the adjoining rear lot
line.
Please recall that the Fridley City Council on April 2, 1979 approved
your request to construct a 20' x 20' detached garage with the
stipulation that it be properly landscaped (screened from the rear
property line). An inspection of the premises was made on June 1, 1981
and no screening had yet been planted.
Since it was a City stipulation that had been made as a condition of
the Special Use Permit, you are still obligated to perform accordingly.
There are many types of landscaping that could be used to meet the
intent of the stipulation. Therefore, would you please contact
Bill Deblon, of our Planning Department, and review your plan before
you proceed to plant it. Bill can be reached at 571-3450.
We hope that you will be able to complete the planting by July 15, 1981.
Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated and if you have
any questions, please contact Bill or myself.
Thank you,
DARREL G. CLARK
Chief Building Official
DGC/mh
CC: Mr. Bill Deblon
June 23, 1981.
Bill Deblon
Planning Department
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Re: Special Use Permit #79-02
Dear Bill:
Persuant to our conversation and instructions of June 12, 1981, I
have contacted Dr. David Holth and Mr. Jerry Tollakson explaining
my proposals to resolve the stipulations on the 20 X 20 accessory
building which I have built on my property at 6841 7th ST. N.E. in
Fridley.
Proposals were as follows:
1. I would plant 3 or 4 pine/spruce trees along the backline of
my property and move my fence back to the line.
2. I offered to purchase and install shrubbery to fill space on the
back of the Holth property, thus matching their land-scp.p:irng.
3. In conversation with the previous owner and with the above named
we were led to believe that there was nothing objectionable to the
building and that no landscaping need be done.
I contacted Dr. Holth and Mr. Tollakson as.'stated above on June 14, 1981,
and again both stated no further landscaping is necessary and would send
a letter so stating. I have enclosed the letter from Mr. Tollakson,
however, to date have not received the letter from Dr. Holth. I will
forward it to you for the file as soon as I receive it.
I trust that this will then fulfill our obligations and close this matter.
Sincerely,
s
Irvin and Shirley Korst
cc: Mr. Tollakson
Dr. Holth
68 q1 5eue
June 23, 1981
Bill Deblon
Planning Department
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Re: Special Use Permit #79-02
Dear Mr. Deblon:
I have discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Korst the above stipulation
and feel that landscaping as it is is sufficient.
Please release him from the stipulation.
Sincerely,
�jZerry
Tollakson
11
N
3 /V -1- 5
.91
4-1 O
0
/-� 'ate Naoi saV � ,
C� �
A
p'asod Old,
July 16, 1981
Bill Deblon
Planning Department
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Re: Special Use Permit #79-02
Dear Bill:
As of this date we have not received the letter from Dr.
David Holth which he indicated he was going to send
releasing us from the stipulation per my letter of June 23, 1981.
Therefore, per our agreement, I request that the City of Fridley
consider my obligation on the stipulation fulfilled.
Sincerely,
Irvin and Shirly Korst
Coal5l �elr s�lp�Z(CeOv/s o� p CC�a/
�(SC � r�ti T
79-0
.
�
y
/S C
V✓
�re�s®�. Q
Coo