The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 07.76OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, July 13, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for variances of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.065, (3,B), to allow tenant -off-street parking in the front yard of an existing 4-Plex, zoned R-2 (two family dwelling areas), also to allow an encroachment into City boulevard with a parking Lot as restricted by the City Code, Section 205.155, (3), located on Lots 12 and 13, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being 380 57th Place N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. James H. Johnson, 621 Bennett Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: This variance request will be heard in conjunction with a similar request for 390 57th Place which was tabled at the Appeals Commission meeting of June 29, 1976. HARVEY A. C Y SURVEYS G T&OLSON ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYSYS HENNE COUNTY SURVEYS MLAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS SURVEYS 6410 PALM STREET N. W. REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA SUN9Er 4.7655 LICENSED BY ORDINANCE OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS OWNER 326 PLYMOUTH BUILDING FEDERAL B-8721 INDUSTRIAL - JUDICIAL HENNEPIN AT SIXTH MINNEAPOLIS 3. MINNESOTA BUSINESS - TOPOGRAPHICAL CITY LOTS - PLATTING 6untpor'S Certificate J IIt•::1 Incorpor, :re,, CO%ISINING THE RECORDS OF J- E- HILL. CIVIL ENGINEER ESTABLISHED IBY` C. F. SANDHOFF CIVIL ENGINEER ESTABLISHED ICOS JAMES NELSON SURVEYOR ESTABLISHED IY22 METROPOLITAN LAND SURVEYORS. LSTABLISNED 1051 Inv --•, I LSC -: b- 4- +' �•: 1 i v^i!' :+ 1:: )l _"?C a "' 1 t, ;LJ:? G' 1_^t..� f _ 02- -L c,. -L Ij JSP � .�: l ., _. ♦ �.�' l / � t SIGNED "kFrr*MRIGHT ANO OLSON op MMD T0: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer MEMO FROM: Iw Thomas A. Colbert, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 9th, 1976 SUBJECT: Variance Requests 390 & 380 - 57th Place In conjunction with Board reviewal of the above referenced variances, some additional information has been derived for consideration in dis- position of these requests. Should the requests be denied, the City would replace the existing depressed driveway opening with a normal curb and gutter section at a cost estimated to be approximately $1,000. If the requests are granted, and front yard boulevard parking is allowed, a maximum encroachment onto the public right-of-way allowed by the Engineering Division would be 10.5 feet. This would leave approximately 5 feet of boulevard behind the curb for snow storage and would insure against any potential for damage to parked vehicles by snow removal ar u#oent. In addition, if the above mentioned encroachment is allowed, the Eng- ineering Division strongly recommends that it be granted with the following stipulation: "This encroachment shaZZ be considered null and void should use of this encroached area be deemed necessary by CounciZ action for any public utility, transitory, or other pubZic interest need. Upon nullifieation, reappZication shaZZ be required to renew existing variance and encroachm, nt." a A. B. C. Number 2 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 380 57th Place N.E. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.065, 3, B, prohibiting parking in the required front yard. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. STATED HARDSHIP: The peitioner was advised by the City Engineering Department that provision had been made to continue access to the existing parking stalls, but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate variance. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Depressed curing was installed in the front of.this 4-Plex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineering Department, because waiting for the processing of the variance request would have been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner was requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curing would be replaced by regular curbing. The apartment has three 2 -bedroom and one single bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The rear of the lot, fronting on 57th Avenue N.E. has depressed curbing and stalls to accommodate 4 cars. 380 57th Place has no existing garage facilities. A majority of the tenants use the existing front yard parking stalls. The area in the front yard, which is being used for parking, involves a 15.5 foot boulevard. Staff pictures show that the entire 15.5 foot boulevard is being used for parking. Parking in a boulevard is in violation of the City Code, Section 205,155, 3. It is apparent that in order to allow parking to continue in the boulevard, the Fridley City Council would have to allow an encroachment into the boulevard for parking purposes, as wellas approve a variance request for parking in the front yard. Attached please find a memo from Tom Colbert, Assistant City Engineer, to Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer, regarding the concerns of the Engineering Department in this matter. Staff feels that although this petitioner has less available space than his neighbor at 390 57th Place N.E., in which to provide the required parking, an alternative parking system, could be arranged. A larger parking area in the rear would be one possible solution. A joint parking arrangement between the two buildings, incorporating diagonal parking would be another. Staff feels that any and all alternatives should be considered before granting the variance request. City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS • _______ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 = � 1 / 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 L_ .__.i`: �•J 612-560-3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF .1 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name � y � Address_ Pho_ne AV / < ten / —/ / - -� — Legal Description Lot o. /") /� Block o. Tract or Addn., Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)) L/ Date Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. v �/ Signature Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date City ®f Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS r 5UBJtci APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS '(Staff I— - _____ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. ' PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. Report) CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 NUMBER 910-F23 FIEV.DATE 1 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Name ' Plan Date To Attend .Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 -feet notified: Mr. & Mrs. Glen Ramsdell -400 57t4 Place N.E. Date Ms. Ann Vanderveen-410 57th Place N.E. Ms. Arlyne Johnson -420 57th Place N.E. .Mr. & Mrs. Carl Paulson -430 57th Place N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Amborn-405 57th Place NE. Mr. Dean A. Rollins -409 57th Place N.E. Mr.. & Mrs. Francis DeRidder -7917 37th Ave. N. Phone or Mail By Whom Notified New Hope, Mn 55427 Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Franke -369 57th Place N.E. John Tiller -417 57th Place N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Richard Simmons -360 57th Place N.E. Mr. & Mrs. James Johnson -621 Bennett Drive N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer-6501-74 1/2 Avenue N. Mpls.55428 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Schuur-5629 5th Street N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Alvin Schnobrich-5649 5th Street N.E. John F. Osterlah-5649 5th Street NE. Mr. & Mrs. David Abrams -5659 5th Street N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Gullickson -5648 5th Street N.E. Jochen & Mary Wolfke-5638 5th Street NE. 'Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Sanetra-5626 5th Street N.E. Mt. & Mrs. Edward Dupay=5618 5th Street N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Olson -5614 5th Street NE.. Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Marchiafara-130 62nd Way N.E. FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Barna, Pat Gabel, Dick Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Schnabel, Jim Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Gabel at 7:29 P.M. APPROVAL OF JUNE 29, 1976 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: Chairperson Gabel stated that this item would have to wait until the next — ^eting of the Appeals Commission as none of the members had received their copies of the minutes. MOTION by Barna; seconded by Kemper, to table the approval of the June 29, 1976 .Appeals Commission minutes until the next scheduled meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motio,, harried unanimously. 1. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (3,B) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-2 .(TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer, 6501 741-2 Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428). 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (3,B) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 60 CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 380 57TH PLACE N.E.,:FRIDLEY, MINNESUTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. James Johnson, 621 Bennett Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432). ALSO: Both these variance requests are also asking to be allowed an encroachment into City boulevard with a parking lot, as restricted in the City Code, Section 205.155, (3). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 390 57th Place N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.065, 3,B. No parking stall shall occupy any portion of the required front yard. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. FRIDLEY APPEALS COM?fISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 2 B. STATED hARDSH IP: Petitioner advised by the City Engineering Department that provision had been made to continue access to these existing stalls, but only contingent upon application and approval Qf the appropriate variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Depressed curbing was installed in the front of this 4-Plex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineer- ing Department, because waiting for the processing of this variance request would :ave been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner was requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curbing would be replaced by regular curbing. The apartment has 3 two-bedroom and 1 single bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The garage in the rear, facing 57th Avenue N.E., has 4 parking stalls. It is located 40 ft. from the curbing on 57th Avenue with approximately 10 feet of boulevard. This would possibly allow for parking in the rear driveway without parking in the street right-of-way. (Those with two cars could park the second car outside, behind their garage stall). In addition, the 4-Plex apartment building next door to the 1rest is 46 feet from the building at 390 57th Place. This area could be used as a joint parking area to help alleviate the front yard parking problem. Diagonal parking with a. drivewa_v from front to rear could be installed. This would require a joint agreementwith the neighbor to the West. In as much as the neighbor to the West is scheduled before the Appeals Commission with a similar request at the next meeting, Staff recommends that the Commission discuss this issue, and postpone a decision until both requests can be considered simultaneously. Staff feels that a viable alternative to this front yard parking can be worked out in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 380 57th Place N.E. , A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMEivT: Section 205.065, 3, B. prohibiting parking in the required front yard. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The petitioner was advised by the City Engineering Depart- ment that provision had been made to continue access to the existing parking stalls, but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Depressed curbing was installed in the front of this 4-Plex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineer- ing Department, because waiting for the processing of the variance request would have been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner was requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curbing would be replaced by regular curbing. The apartment has three 2 -bedroom and one • FRIDLEY APPEAiS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 3 single bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The rear of the lot, fronting on 57th Avenue N.E., has depressed curbing and stalls to accommodate It cars. 380 57th Place has no existing garage facilities. A majority of the tenants use the existing front yard parking stalls. The area in the front yard, which is being used for parking, involves a 15.5 foot boulevard. Staff pictures show that the entire 15.5 foot boulevard is being used for parking. Parking in a boulevard is in violation of the City Code, Section 205.155, 3. It is apparent that in order to allow parking to continue in the boulevard, the Fridley City Council would have to allow an encroachment into the boulevard for parking purposes, as well as approve a variance request for parking in the front yard. Attached please find a memo from Torn Colbert, Assistant City Engineer, to Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer, regarding the concerns of the Engineering Department in this matter. Staff feels that although this petitioner has less available space than his neighbor at 390 57th Place N.E., in which to provide the required parking, an alternative parking system could be arranged. A larger parking area in the rear would be one possible solution. A joint parking arrangement between the two buildings, incorporating diagonal parking, would be another. Staff feels that any and all alternatives should be considered before granting the variance request. Chairperson Gabel read the following memo to Ron Holden from Thomas Colbert dated July 9th, 1976 on the subject of variance requests at 390 and 380 57th Place: Inconjunction with—board reviewal of the above referenced variances, some additional information has been derived for consideration in dis- position of these requests. Should the requests be denied, the City would replace the existing depressed driveway opening with a normal curb and gutter section at a cost estimated to be approximately $1,000. If the requests are granted, and front yard boulevard parking is allowed, a maximum encroachment onto the public right-of-way allowed by the Engineering Division would be 10.5 feet. This would leave approximately 5 feet of boulevard behind the curb for snow storage and would insure against any potential for damage to parked vehicles by snow removal equipment. In addition, if the above mentioned encroachment is allowed, the Engineering Division strongly recommends that it be granted with the following stipula- tion: "This encroachment shall be considered null and void should use of this encroached area be deemed necessary by Council action for any public utility, transitory, or other public interest need. Upon nullification, reapplication shall be required to renew existing variance and encroachment." r W_� FxIDLEY APPEALS CUMMISSION MESrING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAUS 4 Mr. and mrs. Peter Neururer were not at the meeting. Mrs. James Johnson was present to explain her request. Chairperson Gabel explained that the owners of 390 57th Place were to be present so the two items could be handled together, but they were not in attendance. She asked how many cars the tenants had at 3b0 57th Place, and Mrs. Johnson said that the two-bedroom units usually had two cars and the single unit usually one. Mrs. babel said then there would usually be seven cars there, and Mrs. Johnson said that was correct. Mrs. Mabel asked if their property went over to the end of the Fence, and Mrs. Johnson replied that it did. Mrs. Gabel asked how wide the lot was, and Mr. Holden said that both the lots at 380 and 390 were 80, wide. Mrs. Gabel asked if they had considered doing something in. the back to provide more parking, and Mrs. Johnson said they hadn't as most people preferred going in the front door. Chairperson Gabel said she noticed there would be some trees lost if an alterna- tive parking situation was created. Mr. Marna said that the trees were quite old, and there would be some hedges lost also. He added that there were many children, on bikes, etc., in that area. Mr. Holden asked how close the trees were to the West property line, and Mrs. Johnson replied they were almost right to it. Mrs, Gabel noted that the buildings appeared to be well kept up, and said it would be nice, aesthetically speaking, if there could be parking in the rear. Mr. Holden said at the last meeting he had suggested a parking area between the two buildings, but Mrs. Johnson said she didn't believe the other owner would be agreeable to that as he would be giving up a lot of property. She added that there would be no yard area. Mr. Barna asked if the renters were usually young couples, and Mrs. Johnson said they were usually young people just starting out in life. Mr. Barna noted there was quite a slope between the two buildings, also. Mr. Holden agreed, and said it was less than an ideal solution. He asked if Mr. Neururer had contacted Mrs. Johnson, and she replied he had not. Mr. Kemper stated he felt there were two choices: 1) The variance could be denied, and if that decision was upheld by the Council then regular curbing would be put back in front of 380 and 390 and the people who live there would find places to park in the street or behind the building. 2) Leave the depressed curbing in front to permit off-street parking, and incorporate the provisions stated in Mr. Colbert's letter. In this event, part of the solution would be to insist that some sort of curbing be installed in front to delineate or define a parking area. Mr. Barna stated that 380 was not unique in the City of Fridley as he had driven around and found about five other 4-Plexes with similar problems. He stated that one he had seen didn't even have a driveway in back, and a number of other buildings in the City are using front parking facilities now. He said that his question to himself was could they grant one variance because of hardship and not another one because there was a road in back. Mr. Kemper suggested that each hardship should be weighed on its own merits. Mr. Barna said that they would be setting a precedent, and his personal feeling was that in a properly arranged front yard where there was enough room,.it wouldn't be objectionable. He continued that in this particular instance there could be parking in the back of the building with removal of some trees, but the trees gavea nice break -off from 57th. -FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 5 Mr. Kemper stated that if the variance was denied and curbing installed on 57th Place, he didn't think it was the Commission's position to tell them where to park their cars. He stated that was not a concern of theirs, and also the cutting of the trees was something they did not have to get into. He asked if the variance was denied if the Commission should address itself to where they would park their cars. Mr. Barna replied yes, they had to look at the stated hardship and look at the whole balanced picture. Mr. Kemper said he understood that, but wondered if the decision was made to deny the request if they would have to address that problem. Mrs. Gabel said that they would have to meet City Code, but the parking problem was part of the hardship. Mr. Kemper said he didn't believe it was their position to prescribe to them how and where to park. Mr. Holden said that each had to be considered as an individual case. He stated that in this case the hardship was the problem area, and he thought because of the room in the rear and the length of the lot, there would be room to install parking. He added that possibly a couple of trees would be lost, but not all of them, by a matter of design of the parking facility. He said that the neighbor next door had fewer problems with cars, but had a garage and also room to park in front of the garage stalls. He said in that case there would still be the hardship of jockeying the cars around. Mr. Barna asked how many cars there were, and Airs. Johnson said there were usually seven, but right now there were eight. Mr. Kemper said there was nothing they could do to accommodate that many cars anyway. Mr. Barna showed how they could provide three more parking stalls and keep the four they already had. He told Mrs. Johnson they couldn't tell the owners what to do, but they could say there were alternatives to parking in the front. Mr. Holden made a sketch of another parking alternative, and Mr. Kemper said if that were done it would be appropriate to insist that some sort of curbing be installed. Mr. Holden stated that would definitely be appropriate, and any- thing that would be approved by the City Planning Department would be satisfactory. Mr. Kemper asked how many cars could park in that suggested area, and Mr. Holden answered ten cars. Chairperson Gabel said it should be taken into consideration that the code requires each building to have 7.5 parking stalls, and neither building meets that. Mr. Kemper stated that the code was generated after the buildings were built. Air. Kemper sketched a proposed layout of a parking area in the back of the buildings, and said this would necessitate a parking agreement with both owners. Airs. Johnson stated there would be a problem as tenants from the other building would park in stalls meant for use by her tenants. Mr. Holden suggested putting an apartment number on the curbing for each stall. Mrs. Johnson stated that suggestion would wipe out everything in the backyard, where there was grass and a garden, and they would also have to move a shed. Mr. Barna explained they were just saying that there was an alternative to parking in the front.. Chairperson Gabel asked what the legal ramifications would be of granting one and not the other, and stated that she felt the two situations were really different. Mr. Holden said that Staff had discussed these variances with the City Attorney, but mostly just the business of violations of the code and not alternative decisions. Mrs. Gabel asked if this was just noticed because of the'fact that the street work was done, and Mr. Holden said that was correct. Mrs. Gabel said the records showed that the previous owner had been fined, and FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 6 there had been complaints of trash in the yard and cars without license plates. Mr. Holden noted that the building had been improved greatly since the change of ownership. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barna said that having looked at the alternatives and the property as it stands now, and since they were specifically discussing at this time 380 57th Place, he would be in favor of allowing off-street parking in the boulevard in the front with requirements as set forth in the letter from Mr. Colbert. Kemper asked what his feelings were on 3903 and Mr. Barna replied that at 390 they had the garage in the back and cars could be in the garage and in back of the garage, and that would satisfy the requirements. He explained that would be -ten stalls (five in the garage and five outside), and there should be no reason for tenants to park in front. He added that at 380 he could see a hardship and expenses involved in providing additional stalls in the back. Mr. Kemper said he didn't like eating up the whole back yard at 380 with asphalt as the green area was more aesthetically pleasing and nice for the kids to play. Mrs. Gabel said she agreed with Mr. Kemper and would like to see the back yard and the trees not chopped down. She added that as long as they would improve the front to make.it more aesthetically pleasing than it is now, she could live with an encroachment in the front yard. She said she felt there were definite hardships at 380 that.did not exist next door. Mr. Kemper said that if this was put in the form of a motion and was approved, it appeared that they would be permitting the depressed curbing to stay in front of 380 and not in front of 390. He stated that in Tom Colbert's letter he indicated it would cost approximately $1,000 to put the normal curb back up, and asked Mr. Holden how much it would cost to put it back just in front of 390. Mr. Holden answered it would cost about $300 to $4001, and said that move might be a bit questionable. Chairperson Gabel said she could see that happening, but still thought they had to look at this as two individual items as they were two different situations. She stated that one had a garage with five parking stalls inside and five out with little or no need to park in front. She said that one of the tenants had told her there was very little, if any, parking in front, and there was a maximum of only Your cars at the building now. She stated the situation was different at 380. Mr. Holden said to grant an encroachment and off-street parking variance for 3802 and tear up the curbing and replace it at 390 would be inconsistent. Mr. Kemper asked Mrs. Johnson if they were permitted a variance to continue the off-street parking in front, if it would be their intention to delineate that parking area with some sort of curbing. Mrs. Johnson replied yes, they could do that. Mr. Kemper stated he was sure it would be one of the conditions if the request were granted that the parking area be covered with a hard surface and the border defined. Mr. Holden asked Mrs. Johnson if she realized cars would be getting closer to the front of the building, and she replied she did. Mr. Kemper stated that considering all practical use of city's funds, he couldn't agree with allowing the variance at 380 and not 390• Mrs. Gabel said she agreed it should be an all or nothing deal, but it seemed to be a paradox. She stated FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING Or JULY 13, 1976 PAuE 7 she wished the other petitioner was present. Mr. Holden said he hadn't heard from the other owners,.but at the last meeting they said they might be on vaca- tion for six weeks and may not be able to attend. Mr. Barna stated that the city looked at this as one problem, and Mr. Kemper said he agreed. Mr. Kemper added that if they had to make a decision, he would be in favor of it. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by barna, to recommend to Council approval of the requests for variances to allow off-street parking in front of the existing h-Plexes at both 380 and 390 57th Place N.E., Fridley, with the following provisions: 1. That the stipulations contained in Mr. Colbert's memo of July 9, 1976, be incorporated. + 2. That the parking area that would be permitted under this variance be defined by permanent curbing acceptable to the Staff. 3. The surface of this area be paved with covering acceptable to Staff (hard surface). 4. The owners both continue to make arrangements for private snow plowing services. 5. Council is reminded that this variance does incur an encroachment of 10.5 feet of city property. Mr. Kemper stated that he felt the only alternative to this would be distasteful construction with a lot of black top in back of this building, and that would be the worsts of two evils. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Kemper and Barna voting aye, Gabel voting nay, the motion carried 2 - 1. Chairperson Gabel said that while it isn't practical to do so, she saw these as two individual items. She stated she approved granting the variance for 380, but not 390. She explained to Mrs. Johnson that this would go before the City Council on July 26th. 3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.075, 1, (E21) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT AND GUEST OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AUS ADDITION, THE SAME BEINu 106 - 77TH WAY N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNES- OTA. (Request by Paul Burkholder, 7860 Alden Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Mr. Holden stated that Mr. Burkholder had called and asked that this item be postponed until the next meeting of the Appeals Commission. 4. REQUEST FUtt A VARIANCE OF SECTION 214.053, 23 FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TU RAISE THE 100 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM SIZE OF A FREE STANDING SIGN IN C -2S ZONING (GENERAL SHOPPING AREAS), TO 108 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 139 1976 PAGE 8 f INFORMATION SIGN TO BE ADDED TO AN EXISTING 96 SQUARE FOOT SIZE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH 204 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 200 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, EAST RANCH ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7730 UNIVERS1iTY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by the Town Crier Pancake House, 7730 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432). Chairperson Gabel stated that since the petitioner was not present, they could not act on this request. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to table this item until the next scheduled meeting of the Appeals Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. A REQUEST FOx A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4, A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 24.6 FEET, TO ALLO:d THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 FT. BY 24 FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING NON-CUNFORMING STRUCTURE, LOCATED Ora LOT 9, BLOCK 13 CARLSON'S SUMMIT MAAOR SUUTH ADDITION, THE SAME bEING 100 PILOT AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Robert C. Struif, 100 Pilot Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55421). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served by the section of the Code is to allow for off- street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: A six foot drop into the back yard would prohibit construction of a detached garage. Request variance to front yard setback • to construct an 181. X 24' attached garage. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: This house was built as part of a "staggered setback" arrangement around 1955s before any ordinances were in effect. The requested garage addition would be approximately 5 feet from the adjacent property lines Considering the severity of grade change on this lot and the staggered setbacks of houses in this area, Staff feels that this is a valid request. Mr. Robert Struif was at the meeting to present his request. He stated that he wanted to put a garage up, and due to the extreme drop-off where the house was built it would be almost impossible to put in a detached garage in back. He said, however, that his neighbor had just done that, and even though his drop wasn't as steep as Mr. Struif's, they had gotteh stuck there once already. Mr. Kemper asked if he was now parking beside the house in the area he was proposing for a garage, and Mr. Struif replied he was. Mr. Kemper asked if he was planning on building an 18' addition on the side of his house, and Mr. Struif answered that was correct. 128 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1976 PAGE 4 CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION P.S. #73-09, ALICE WALL ADDITION: Mr. Sobiech asked if, there was anyone to represent the Wall Addition as Mr. Wall was aware that the item was on the agenda for this evening. There was no response from the audience. Mr. Sobiech then gave a brief up -date of the matter, stating that when the plat was originally approved, there was quite a bit of urgency for the development of the multiple dwelling portion. However, at the present time, there is more of a need to develop the platted residential single family lots and as noted by the letter of understanding in the agenda signed by Mr. Wall, there is an outline of stage construction which would allow development of single family lots. Mr. Sobiech further pointed out that at this point in time, single family lots would be developed prior to the apartment house lots. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the final plat subdivision P.S. #73-09. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to authorize execution of agreement to develop the Alice Wall Plat. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1976: CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1976: MR, NEURURER, 390 - 57TH PLACE - MR: JOHNSk, 380 57TH PLACE DISCUSSED TOGETHER): Mr. Sobiech discussed the matter regarding a request for parking in the front yard of two existing 4-plexes located at 380 and 390 57th Place, which has been going on for a number of years. The owners were approached and requested to obtain a variance or the depressed curbing would be replaced by regular curbing. The matter was brought before. the Appeals Commission and they did, vote for approval of the request, however, certain parking alternatives were discussed. Mr. Sobiech further pointed out that the 390 57th Place structure has an advantage whereby there is a garage in the rear which enables parking beind the garage and is in compliance with the existing code. The 380 57th Place structure has no existing garage facilities, so the majority of the tenants use the existing front yard parking stalls. A suggestion was made at the Appeals Commission meeting whereby the owners could purchase property from the west and property from the east and develop a joint parking arrangement between the two buildings. Mayor Nee then asked if -.the owners were present. Mr. Neururer was not, however Mrs. James Johnson of 621 Bennett Drive, owner of 380 57th Place, was present. Councilman Hamernik stated that in driving by the area it certainly did not look verydesirable and, Mrs. Johnson agreed. Councilman Hamernik further commented that referring to the proposal as outlined, there is still an encroachment on the boulevard area even if the variance was approved. Mayor Nee then asked Mrs. Johnson if some other effort could be made to come up with some other alternatives. In his opinion, up until this point no such effort has been made. Councilman Hamernik stated he felt the property owners could come up with an alternative and resolve this .without the variance. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table the matter and see if the Staff can do something on this. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. HILLWIND ADDITION, PLAT SUBDIVISION #76-06: MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to set the public hearing for September 20, 1976. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1976. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1976 PAGE 3 f that it would probably be the initiative of .the Council upon their finding a couple of nights a week that there is parking on the highway. He also stated that an agreement could be made in order for the Legion to undertake this. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Sobiech if similar agreements have been made with others and he responded that there have been; however, in most cases it was an agreement between the property owner that would be sharing the parking or the property owner already owning the property. Councilman Hamernik stated that he would be in favor of having some sort of a stipulation on the agreement and if the Legion is going to expand their parking, he would like to see a plan as to where they will expand. Mr. Sobiech then stated that since the City Council would not be meeting for another month, the consideration of the second reading of the rezoning ordinance could be brought back at that time and perhaps they might have a proposed agreement with the American Legion. Councilwoman Kukowski then stated that it was her understanding that we would be asking the Legion to wait on this. Mr. Sobiech responded .that the rezoning is not on this evening's agenda. Mr. Kinkel stated that they would like to start work and hopefully open in one month. Mayor flee then stated that a motion to remove the ordinance from the table was needed. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to take the ordinance from the table and place it on the agenda this evening. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to waive the reading and adopt an ordinance on second reading on rezoning. request, zoning ordinance amendment ZOA #75-02, Frontier Club; 7364 Central Avenue Northeast. It is to be numbered and published after all stipulations are completed. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION P.S. #76-01, INNSBRUCK NORTH TOWNHOUSE IV & V: CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION P.S. #76-02, INNSBRUCK VILLAGE: Mr. Sobiech, the Public Works Director, discussed the Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and E V addition and the proposed Innsbruck Village. He stated that these plats were before the City Council for reapproval since certain time limits have expired since original i approval; and at this point in time, the IVth and Vth addition is just as originally presented and there are no changes. He stated that there was a minor change in the Innsbruck Village in that originally proposed was 100 townhouse unit developments and after going back to the drawing table to draw up the hard shells, it was discovered that by eliminating three structures that were originally proposed, which amounts to twelve units in the development, they could better utilize the property and make use of the existing terrain. However, Me. Sobiech said that this map is only a copy of the plat of Innsbruck Village as he now has it and that the hard shells for both the i townhouses are on file. He further stated that it was the intent of the developer to proceed with the original planning request to try to make up the three structures which were removed from the original layout of Innsbruck Village. In the end, they hope to achieve 96 units as opposed to 100 originally planned. The new Innsbruck Village plat only has 88 of them. He stated that they were advised that they will have to proceed through another public hearing of the Planning Commission and the City Council and there was no guarantee of such approval. He further stated that there was one problem in that the easement for the dedication of the Innsbruck North Park was supposed to have been given to the City; however, certain back taxes have not been paid. After discussion with the developer, h2 indicated that, if there is an attempt to abate the back taxes, he will pay the back taxes with the understanding that the City would ,pay the special assessments. The back taxes are for the years 1974, 1975, and 1976, and Mr. Sobiech said it would seem reasonable that if they were willing to pay the back taxes which are approximately $2,200.00, the City would pay the assessments. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt'to approve the final plat subdivision P.S.06-01.Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the final plat subdivision P.S. #76-02. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski.. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously., _y f � -I t raiz: F r f AA 4t ,Y %r September 2, A. r ./ 1976 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE W.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Registered Mail #495106 Mr. & Mrs. James H. Johnson 621 Bennett Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 / Re: Alternate Parking Arrangementsements at 380 and 390l 57th Place N.E. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Johnson: I have been requested by the Fridley City Council to contact you in regard to your variance requests for frons: yard parking and encroachment for parking in the boulevard in front of your 4 -plea apartment at 380 - 57th Place N.E. In its August 16, 1976 meeting, the City Council discussed this request at length and felt that an alternate solution should be sought. Possibly a meeting between yourselves, Mr. & Mrs. Neururer, 6501-741-1 Avenue North (560-9588), the owners of 390 - 57th Place N.E., and myself would be helpful in seeking an alternate plan acceptable to the City Council. The Council has requested that an alternate plan be submitted to them at their September 13, 1976 meeting. Although the responsibility for this alternate plan is yours, our office will be at your disposal to answer any questions you may have in this regard. Our office hours are from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., monday through friday. Our phone number is 571-3450.' Please contact me as soon as possible in order to arrange a mutually acceptable meeting time for all involved. Thank you for your prompt attention. Sincerely, RON HOLDEN Building Inspection Officer RH/mh 136 r REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PAGE 2 tated that the assump on his MOT10 was th they ar not Fridl tax do ars. C ncilman Hamernik st ed th perhap the agree. nt sh ld be nulli 'ed an approached fro a different ang . Mr. Do a P1ul in, Director of a Sprinnbrook atu e Foun tion commen that the CE fu ds are monies rovide jobs and o City s vices. UPON A ROL ALL VOTE, Councilman F tz trick voting aye, Councilman St rwa t voting n ouncilwoman Kukowski oting e, Counc lman H ernik vo nay and M or Nee ting aye. Mayor N e declare the m tion carr ed three yes an two ays. 'CONSIDERATION OF A REQUES~1' FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW FRONT YARD PARKING AT 390 AND 80 57th PLACE N.E. -- P. NEURURER AND J. JOHNSON TABLED 8/16/76 AND RECEIVING .L.. Mr. Dick Sobiech, the Public Works Director, stated that this was initially a request for a variance to alloy parking in the front yard and encroaching in the public right of way. He further stated that the matter was heard before the Appeals Commission and approval of the request was recommended to the City Council. Mr. Sobiech then asked if the petitioners were present to discuss the matter. Mrs. Mary Johnson, 621 Bennett Drive N.E., Fridley, owner of 380 57th Place N.E., then commented that she did meet with the inspector on Thursday, September 9, 1976 and the alternatives as drawn up by the Appeals Commission were discussed; and at present are not working out well. They still do not have enough parking places. She further stated that she and Mrs. Neururer, the owner of 390 57th Place N.E., obtained a petition signed by all the neiqhtbors, with one exception. She then pr,.:eeded to show the petition to the City Council along with Mrs. Neururer, 6501 742 Avenue North, Minneapolis. MOTION -by Councilman Hamernik to receive Petition #14-1976 on this matter. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. After some discussion, Councilman Hamernik stated that he would not like to see oarkino on the boulevards and that perhaps by granting this request, a precedent mould be set and thereby allowing the possibility of similar requests in the future. Councilwoman Kukowski then stated that she talked with the neighbors and there. was no problem. Mr. Alex Barna, Appeals Commission, stated that this was a very unique circumstance and it would not be setting a precedent, and that the two buildings in question should be looked at as one situation only. Councilman Hamernik then questioned the problem of snow removal and Mrs. Neururer stated that the drive- ways are always plowed and there has never been any snow build-up. Mayor N:ee then asked Mrs. Mary Johnson if she was aware of the five stipulations placed on the premises by the Appeals Commission, and she responded she was. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendations of the Appeals Commission including the stipulations one through five to nrant the special use permit. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION10F A. REQUEST FOR VARJANCE TO ALLOW FRONT ,YARD PARKING AT 106 77TH 17r. ick So ech, Pub 'c Works D' (rector, di cussed . e mat er stating th originally he th ugJ P rhaps an ag eement c uld be work d out ith the property ow er and Barry ow Gompanv, wh re a portion of th Co parry's par ing lot c uld be utilize P1r: Sobiech th n ma a reference to otter from t e Barry Blower Company stating t the Company's .a' concern would b the, problem o thei employees parking 1 being utilized others and the di atisfaction the w uld create among them; an th refore, decline to get involved 'n n anreement wit the property owner of the artment buil in Mr. Sobiech hen asked if t1r. holder was present nd th a was no r spon I MOTION y Council n Fitz atrick't concur wi h the u Appeal Commission o gr t the vari nce, S conded by j a vo* a vote, all vo ing aye, Mayor 11 delc red the m imouscommen tion of the Duncil an Hamer 1'4 to C rried unanim sly. THE MIWES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF. SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 ' The Regula: Meeting of the Fridley City Council of September 13, 1976 was called to order at 7'40 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF A LEGIANCE: Mayor Nee le the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance o the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESEN Mayor Nee, Councilman Hamernik, Councilwoman K owski, Councilman Starwalt, and Councilman Fitzpatrick. MEMBERS ABSENT: No APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF GUST 16, 1976: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to dopt the minute of the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of August 16, 976 as subm' ted. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all vo ing aye, ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to adop the a,enda with the addition of receiving a comunication from School District # regard g meeting on Utilization of Cormiunity . Service Levy. Seconded by Council man Kukowsk'. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motio carried unani usly. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mr. Vern Moen, Chairman of a Board of Springbrook Par Nature Center, 7154 N.E. Riverview Terrace, address d the Council and stated that along with others, were working with Dr. Da Huff and more help was needed. a additional help, as he understands it, woul come from several CETA employees at o additional cost to the taxpayer; and a this time, he would ask the City Counc for permission to be granted for Dr. H f to use these people at his discretion. uncilman Starwalt then asked the staf if a letter from the State Senators was on fi e with the City indicating that it ould be lawful to do what was proposed. Mr. Mo stated that Dr. Huffnbelieved a could document this. MOTION by Coun lman Fitzpatrick that CETA employees, as they are availab at the discretion of r. Huff, are to be used under his direction. Seconded by Co cil- woman Kukows Councilman Hamernik then raised the question regarding the a ics of City fun s being used in the North Park area. Councilman Fitzpatrick then commented hat the concern here is whether or not City funds are being disbursed without b ing reimbursed, and he felt that City funds are being disbursed. Council n Starwalt questioned the appropriate use of people being used under the CETA ogram as well as the North Park proposal and that there were other sections of t City that could use more attention. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he had Dr. uff's recommendation that these people do have the time to work at both North Pa and on the CETA projects. Councilman Starwalt stated that he had no such r commendation. Councilman Hamernik further commented that there is an agreement with e Springbrook- Foundation whereby City funds will not be used and he believed City funds would be used if CETA people are brought in since the grant is for the entire City. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she never believed the CETA funds were the City's money and that it came from the government. Councilman Fitzpatrick f CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET' Petition No. 14-1976 Date Received September 13, 1976 Object Property owners have no objections to the exsistinq off-street • parking in the front of 380 - 57th Place and 390 - 57th Place. Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing Referred to City Council Disposition 7 Or �F� vyv�t 621 Bennett Drive Johnson h E on Fridley, Mn 55432 ... oQTA 55432 TELEPHONE (812)571-3450 September 22, 1976 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Ree Variance for 380 57th Place N.E. On September 13' 1476 _ the Fridley City Council officially approved yourrequest for Varian�p with the stipulations listed below. Please review the noted stipulaticns, 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 att- 571-3450, Sincerely, ERROLD L. OARDMAN CITY PLANNER JL6/de Stipulations: 1. That the stipulations contained in Mr. Colbert's memo of July 9, 1976 be incorporated. (see copy of memo from Appeals Commission minutes). 2. That the parking area that would be permitted under this variance be defined by permanent curbing acceptable to the Staff. 3. The suface of this area be paved with covering acceptable to Staff (hard surface] 4. The owners both continue to make.arrangements for private snow plowing services. 5. Council is reminded that this variance does incur an encroachment of 10.5 feet of City property. Concur with action taken. U � m u! _ zy ,fid