VAR 06.76�.
City of F r' idley
AT THE TOP Of THE TN/INS
i L 4 _ ----.� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
�•• - PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
r
--1 CITY HALL f RIDLEY 55432
---�•� +•' 612-56(1-3450
SUHJEGT
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
NUMBER
910-F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE OF
.1 2
APPROVED by
800
Name ye Address -) 2/ A? Phone
d- I��i •��� .L�. �,L `1.�\� ,�C.L�Ll;.+2. i'1 �`l �%/— / 7 aZ l.C� L'�ll.�, �J �, (J'�%�GT
Legal
Description
Lot No.
�.a► ��
Block No.
Tract or Addn.I
C,[ C '.�
j 7 L Ylie�
Variance Request(s); including stated hard` ips (attach plat
showing building, variances etc., where applicable)
,/
.16) � ���4&�
or survey of property
CA go S;f
Date h
Meeting Date
Fee
Receipt No.
s' Lure
Comments & Recommendations by '
the Board of Appeals.
City Council Action and Date
City of Fridley
' AT THE TOP of THE TWINS
wee c f
APPLICATION TO
BOARD OF
APPEALS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r L PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
1
CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
•""'�' � 612-560-3450
(Staff Report)
NUMBER
910-F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/.^� 5
PAGE• OF
2 2
APPROVED BY
800
Staff Comments
Board members notified of meeting by 4o 7-11
List members,
date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing.
Date
Plan
To Attend
Name
4 ��✓di L1
�-
Pears making appeal and the following property owners having
property within
200
feet notified:
By Whom
Name Date
Phone or
Mail
Notified
Mr. & Mrs. Glen Ramsdell-400 57th Place
Ms. Ann Vanderveen -410 57th Place NE
Ms. Arlyne Johnson-420 57th Place N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Carl Paulson-430 57th Place N.'E.
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Amborn =405 57th Place N.E.
Mr. Dean A. Rollins - 409 57th Place Ni'E
John Tiller -417 57th Place N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Francis DeRidder-359 57th Place N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Franke-369 57th Place
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Simmons-360 57th Place N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Wishy - 380 57th Place N.E.
Mr. &-Mrs. Peter Neururer - 390 57th Place N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Schuur -5629 5th Street N.E.
Mr. &'Mre. Alvin Schnobrich-5649 5th Street
John F. Osterlah-5639 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. David Abrams -5659 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Gullickson-5648 5th Street N.E.
Jochen & Mary Wolfle-5638 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Sanetra-5626 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Dupay-5618 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Olson 5614 5th Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Marchiafara-5645 4th Street N.E.
0
A.
B.
C.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
390 57th Place N.E.
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.
STATED HARDSHIP:
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 of the appropriate variance.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Depressed curbing 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 this 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 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 possible 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 West if 46 feet from
the building at 390 57th Place. This area could be be used as a joint
parking area to help alleviate the front yard parking problem. Diagonal
parking with a driveway from front to rear could be installed. This would
require a joint.agreement with 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 simultaneiously.
Staff feels that a viable alternative to this front yard parking can be
worked out in this case.
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City
of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, June 29, 1976 at 7:30 P.M.
to consider the following matter:
A request for a variance of Section 205.065, (3,A)
to allow tenantloff�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, 390 57th Place N.E., Fridley, Minnesota
55432).
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA WAHLBERG
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
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.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
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 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 Engineering Department, because
waiting for the processing of this 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 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 possible 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 West if 46 feet from
the building at 390 57th Place. This area could be be used as a joint
parking area to help alleviate the front yard parking problem. Diagonal
parking with a driveway from front to rear could be installed. This would
require a joint agreement with 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 simultaneiously.
Staff feels that a viable alternative to this front yard parking can be
worked out in this case.
1
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETaU OF JUNE 293 1976 PAGE 6
airperson Schnabel said the request was to go to 3619 but it seemed to fall in
ne more with 37' instead of 361. Mr. Holden said he was really allowing for
e fact that they didn't have a verifying survey, and added that it might be
.7' or 371. '.'.rs. Gabel asked if there would have to'be a fire wall, and Mr.
lden replied there would be.
. Kemper said he agreed with Mr. Plemel that there didn't seem to be a signifi-
nt hardship, but if the neighbors felt as Mr. Black suggested, he had no objection.
s. Schnabel said she believed they would have heard from the neighbors either
letter or phone call.if they objected.
. Gabel said that perhaps their hardships weren't well defined, but there
Id have been additional problems going off the back and it would be an
itional expense, so there would be a few hardships to be taken into consider -
on. Mr. Barna said that if they had a lot of room and wanted more room, it
their prerogative. He stated he would have no objection to it.
ION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the
uest for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
nimously.
3 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (31A) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO
ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX,
ZONED R-2 (TIVIO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK
6, CITY VIF,,v ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA 55432). (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer, 6501 - 712
Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55.28).
F11
ON by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice
, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
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.
STATED HARDSHIP: 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 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 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 curbing 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 garage in the rear,
FKiDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAGE 5
Chairperson Schnabel stated that according to the drawing, the current garage
area was 22' long by 191,�' wide, and asked Mr. Black if he had considered not
taking the entire garage area for the family room and dropping the new garage
back slightly. Mr. Black said that was a possibility, and stated that the amount
he was asking for did not include the fact that he would probably not take all
of the area for a family room. He added that there would be some storage space
included, and he really didn't anticipate using the entire garage for the family
room. Mrs. Schnabel said what she was suggesting was instead of coming out as
far as the drawing showed, starting the outside wall in further from the street.
Mr. Black said he would really like the flexibility to obtain the variance as
requested, and added that he didn't really have a firm plan.
Chairperson Schnabel said with the proposed plan Mr. Black would be at 371, and
the neighbor was at 401, and added that the one they were concerned with was
the neighbor at 1470. Mr. Black said he had put a marker as far out as he was
asking to go, and had asked the neighbors if it would disturb their siteline
at all. He stated the neighbors said there was no problem as far as they were
concerned. Mr. Black explained that they were a retired couple who spent a lot
of time watching television and reading by the picture window, and they said it
would not bother them. Mr. Holden said that the street did curve, and the contour
of the development helped.
Mr. Barna stated that the garage to the West stuck out considerably, but the
rest were side -attached or tuck -under garages. he said that the proposed plan
would call for a rather long roof line, and tnought it might look rather peculiar.
Mr. Black said that was why they got a professional opinion, and he felt they
wouldn't have any problem making it look good. Mrs. Mabel said that as a rule, if
people are particular about what they are asking for they will get what they want.
Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. black had a ball park price, and he replied it would
cost between $12,000 to $15,u00. He added that he would probably do some painting
himself and some of the finishing or minor work, but was not a contractor so
would hire people to do the rest of the work.
MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
'Mr. Ple mel said that ordinarily there was a stated hardship, and he didn't really
see one with the size of this family or size of the home. He.stated that if
there were any objections from neighbors he would vote against it, but since
there were none he would go with it.
Mr. Barna said that if the couple to the East were to move, the new purchasers
would be stuck with a restricted view. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that if someone
purchased the home they would be aware of that. Mrs. Schnabel added that they
had to bear in mind the curve of the street, and said their view was more to
the front of their own particular lots.
Mr. Kemper stated that the public purpose served was off-street parking, and
there was no problem there. He said it appeared the addition would be well -
thought out and situated satisfactorily with regard to the existing house, so
his feeling was that it was a satisfactory request and he would be inclined to
go along with it.
FRIDLEY APPEALS CUMMISSION MEETINU OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAVE 7
facing 57th Avenue N.E., has 5 parking stalls. It is located 40 feet 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 West is 46 feet from the building at 390 57th
Place. The area could be used as a joint parking area to help alleviate
the front yard parking problem. Diagonal parking with a driveway from
front to rear could be installed. This would require joint agreement with
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.
Mr. and Mrs,. Neururer approached the Board and said they had bought the building
about five years ago, and thought it must be about twenty years old. Mr.
Neururer stated there had been parking allowed in front of his building and
the 4-Plex next to it for twenty years, and the curbs were depressed to allow
the cars to drive in.
Mr. Hol,.den explained that a letter had been sent from the City Engineer, Tom
Colbert, saying that the off-street parking accommodations on 57th Place were
in violation of the City Code. He said the letter had stated that in order to
continue parking that way, they would have to request a variance or the city
would remove the depressed curbing. Mr. Holden further explained that the
depressed curbing had been poured because the concrete machines were right
there working on a street improvement project.
MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the Planning Commission receive the
letter from Thomas Colbert to Mr. Peter Neururer, dated June 1, 1976, notifying
them they were in violation of the City Code. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel noted there were parking stalls for five cars in the rear
of the building, and asked if the tenants didn't use them. Mr. Neururer replied
that the stalls were assigned and used by the tenants, but occasionally they would
park in the front. He added that there was parking in front of the garage
stalls also.
Mr. Kemper asked how many total cars the four tenants had, and -Mr. Neururer
replied they all had at least one car. Mr. Plemel asked where the parking
space was in front of the garage, and Mr. Neururer answered between the garage
and the curb. Mr. Plemel asked how this all came about, and Mr. Holden said
that normally when the new curbing goes in on the street the new property owners
are informed; however, while the discussion was going on the concrete machines
were going down the street so it was poured as depressed curbing. Mr. Holden
explained that the neighbor to the West had a similar problem, and was scheduled
to appear before the Appeals Commission on their next agenda.
FRIDLEY APPEALS CUMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 291, 1976 PRUE'8"
Mr. Barna asked what their actual desire was, and if they would rather have the
tenants all park in back. Mr. Neururer answered that they would prefer to keep
it the way it is now. Mr. Plemel asked if visitors could park on the street
for many hours, and Mr. Holden said they could. Mr. Plemel asked what the
ordinance was, and Mr. Holden replied that parking was not allowed continuously
for twenty-four hours. Mr. Plemel asked what the street width was, and Mr.
Holden answered it was 3W back of curb to back of curb, with a driving surface
of about 321.
Chairperson Schnabel said that apparently back in 1968, when the detached
garage was built, they had requested approval of a setback from 35' to 301.
She stated that work was started on the garage and the concrete poured, but
a red tag was issued because it was improperly set back and there was a court
hearing. Mr. Kemper asked if there was any discussion on the proposed garage
pertaining to off-street parking in the front, and Mrs. Schnabel replied that
the code violation was that setback for garages and accessory buildings in a
rear yard should be the same as for a front ,yard. Chairperson Schnabel read
the following history of the garage to the Commission:
April
10,
1968
- Issued Building Permit #9659 for a 4 stall garage
at 390 57th Place N.E. with a 351 setback.
April
16,
1968
- Inspection made by Clarence Belisle. "Hold for Council
determination on setback."
April
19,
1968
- Inspection made by Jan Gasterland. Upon advise of the
City Attorney the contractor was advised not to pour.
April
26,
1968 -
Stop work order issued by Inspector Gasterland.
April 26, 1968 - Letter written to the owner, Terry Haig, by the City
Engineer, Mr. Qureshi, stating that he must go to the
Board of Appeals for the variance on the setback.
May 3, 1968 - Inspection made by Clarence Belisle. Pictures were taken
at this time of the garage under construction.
May 6, 1968 - Complaint signed by the Building Inspector.
May 14, 1968 - More pictures taken which indicated further construction
had taken place since the pictures on 5/3/68.
Chairperson Schnabel said they continued to proceed and finally on July 17, 1968,
the case was brought before a judge. She stated the records do not say what
happened, but the garage was obviously finished.
Mrs. veururer stated that some of the tenants had two cars,' and it they parked
one in the garage stall and one behind, they would nave to juggle their cars
around and it would be inconvenient to them. She said that parking arrangements
had been this way for some time and the tenants were used to the off-street
parking, and it would be missed if it was not allowed.
FUNIA,t APPEALS CuMMISSIGN MEQ TiriG OF JUNE 29, 1970 PAuE 9
Chairperson Schnabel said that they had to keep Doth 4-Plexes in mind, as they
couldn't grant a variance to one and not the other. She asked if tney had
talked to the owner at 3d0 about this, and Mr. Neururer replied he had not.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the reason she asked was because Staff felt that an
alternative to the off-street parking for both of them would be to put a drive-
way in between the two buildings. Mr. Neururer replied that he was against
that idea. He stated they had nothing but trouble with kids cutting through
their property now, and he could foresee many complaints from the tenants. He
added that he had a fence through there that had been vandalized.
Chairperson Schnabel asked how many of the tenants used the garage stalls at
the present time, and Mrs. Neururer replied that they all did. She added that
one of the tenants did not have a car, but used the garage for storage; and
that occasionally half of the double garage was used for storage. She said
they all parked their cars in the garages overnight at this time. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if the parking in the front was limited, and Mrs. Neururer replied it
was.
Mr. Barna asked if Mr. Neururer would go along with black topping and a curb
in the area in front, and he replied that he would. Mr. Holden said there
was a substantial boulevard there also, and the front was 35' setback from
the lot line. Mr. Barna said he would be against the alternative suggested by Staff
as it would be a playground for the kids, there would be vandalism problems,
and the grass looked a lot better.
Mr. Kemper asked what would happen if this variance was denied, and Mr. Holden
said about 80' of depressed curbing would have to be removed at the city's
expense,, and it would have to be replaced. He stated this would run between
$1,000 and $1,600.
Chairperson Schnabel said that if the tenants were prohibited from parking on
the boulevard property and off-street parking was granted, they would have to
park right up to the front of the building. Mr. Holden said he thought
boulevard parking could be granted. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that would require
a special request since it was a separate code, and Mr. Holden said he didn't
think so. He said if parking were allowed on the boulevard, perhaps there
should be some curbing there so it would look like a parking area. He stated
he thought this would enhance it, as sometimes people drive over on the grass.
Mr. Plemel added that it would clean it up somewhat, and would define the area.
Chairperson Schnabel said that off-street parking did not necessarily mean
parking in the front yard, and that was why she was wondering if it would need
a separate request to park on the boulevard. She asked how this was plowed
in the wintertime, and Mr. Neururer replied that he plowed it himself. Mr.
Kemper asked where he put the snow, and Mr. Neururer said no further on the
grass than he had to. Mrs. Schnabel said that if off-street parking were allowed,
there would have to be some kind of a guarantee that it would be plowed. Mr.
Kemper asked if he plowed snow for his neighbor at 380, and Mr. Neururer replied
he did not.
Mr. Plemel stated that he didn't think the absence of off-street parking in
front would cause any problem in renting the units. Mr. Neururer agreed, but
FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION 14EE`PING OF JUNE 29, 1976
PAGE 10
said the tenants that already lived there were used to it. Mrs. Neururer stated
that the units would be.less desirable if the people had to move their cars
around to get one out. She added that the people in the double garage had two
cars, there was someone else moving in with two cars, so there would be three
tenants who had two cars. She stated there really wasn't a problem as long as
off-street parking was available. Mr. Kemper said he would like this correct
number of tenants with two cars noted in the record.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the existing code would require 7.5 parking
stalls for the size and number of apartments in that dwelling, so since they
have five existing stalls they would technically have to provide 2.5 more to
meet the code. Mr. Plemel pointed out that the area in front of the garage
was not really a parking stall. Mr. Holden said that if they were to grant
this request, they should include Section 205.155, 1, 2 & 3, talking about
boulevards.
Chairperson Schnabel said that what they came down to was since parking would
be prohibited on the boulevard, it would be a requirement that 2.5 additional
parking stalls be provided on the property with an access that could go on to
the boulevard. She explained that if they allowed off-street parking in the
front, they could state their approval in terms of number of parking stalls.
They could allow three off-street parking stalls in the front, she stated.
Mrs. Schnabel added that she was trying to get at justifying the request, because
then it would come up to code. She stated that they had an additional problem
when they talked about this in terms of the structure next door, and thought it
was unfortunate they couldn't have both requests before them at the same time.
Mrs. Schnabel said that because the two buildings were adjacent, even though
they had separate owners, they were the only two on that side of the street
and should both be considered at the same time. Mr. Neururer asked if just
their variance could be granted at this time, and the other owner's at the
time he appeared before the Board. Chairperson Schnabel said she didn't tnink
that was the solution, and said the other owner's problem was a little different
since he does not have a garage.
Mr. Plemel asked if there weren't requirements for off-street parking when these
buildings were built, and Mrs. Schnabel said not necessarily. She stated that
these codes probably didn't exist at the time those buildings were built. Mr.
temper suggested tabling -this until such time that both parties could appear
before the Board. Mrs. Neururer asked if the tenants would be ticketed in the
meantime, and Mr. Holden replied they would not. Mr. Neururer asked if it would
help to talk to the neighbors and have them sign something, and Mr. Barna said
it would.help a little bit. He stated that there was a conflict with three or
four different zoning ordinances, and a solution was necessary, so it would be
better to look at the whole picture instead of just part of it. Mr. Barna asked
if they would go with a well-maintained parking area in the front, and Mrs.
Neururer replied they would, and said they had plans to black top it.
There was some discussion as to if Mr. and Mrs. Neururer would be able to
attend the next scheduled meeting of the Appeals Commission if this were to
be tabled, as it conflicted with their vacation plans. After some debating,
it was decided that they would reschedule their plans to be in attendance.
FRIDL9YAPPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAVE 11
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Marna, that the Appeals Commission table this request
until the next scheduled meeting on July 13, 1976, when both parties of 390 and
380 57th Place would appear on the agenda; and that off-street parking be permitted
until the Board has acted on this request. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the Appeals Commission meeting of June 29, 1976
at 9:33 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherri O'Donnell
Secretary
P
136
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1976
ate
th the ass pt'o
o calm Hamernik tat
fro a fferent angle.
Foun 't on commented that
City s rvices.
UPON A LL CALL VOTE, Co
voti g na Councilwoman
and Mayor ee voting aye.
tw nays.
PAGE 2
of � MOTION was th they e not Frill tax doll
t t erhaps the agree ent ould be nullif d and a
.'Do le Mullin, Dire cto o the Springbrook ture
e ETA funds are monies provide jobs and n t
c 1 n Fitzpatrick vAgaouncilman Starw t
owsk votina aye, Cmernik voting ay
avor Ne declared thried three ay s and
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW FRONT YARD PARKING AT 390 AND
380 57th PLACE N.E. -- P. NEURURER AND J. JOHNSON TABLED 8/16/76 _ AND RECEIVING
OFF- rclillull �J�
STREETPARKINGINTHE FRONT OF ��u
F380 57th PLACE N.E.AND t
Mr. Dick Sobiech, the Public Works Director, stated that this was initially a request
for a variance to allow 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 neightbors, with one exception. She then.proceeded 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
parking on the boulevards and that perhaps by arantinn this request, a precedent
would be set and thereby allowing the possibility of similar requests in the future.
Councilwoman Kukowski then stated that she talked with the neiahbors 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. Piayor Nee then
asked Mrs. nary 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 throunh five to arant the special use
permit. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUE T FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW FRONT YARD PARKING AT 106 77TH
JAY ., PAUL B RK R (TABLED76
fir. Dick o iech, Publ'c IIorks Directo discu ed the matterAld
g th originally
! he thoug pe aps an greement could be rke out with the pow rand
Barry Blower C ipany whereby a portion o t Company's pa c Id be
utilized.b Mr. bi h then made reference a letter from t lower Company
stating that the o.pany's main concern wo be the problem r employees
parkina lot beinn tilized by others and a di satisfaction ild create among
them; and therefo e, declined to net inv ved in n agreementpropertyowner of the ap tmen building. Mr. So iech then stied if fiho er waspresent and th a was n response.
MOTION by Co ncilman Fitzpa rick to c ncur with the unan usendation f the
Appeals Co 'ssion to grant a vari nce. Seconded by Councimernik. Upon
a voice vot•, all voting aye, yo r Nee delcared the motion carried unanimously.
165
1
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1976
The Regula Meeting of the Fridley City Council of September /kowski,
order at 7: 0 p.m. by Mayor Nee.
PLEDGE OF AL EGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Council and the audience in saying the Plede
Flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESE T: Mayor Nee, Councilman Hamernik, Councilwon
Starwalt, and Councilman Fitzpatrick.
MEMBERS ABSENT:None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
- REGULAR COUNCIL ME TING OF AUGUST 16, 1976:
MOTION by CouncilmanS rwalt to adopt the minute' the Regular Meeting of the
Fridley City Council of ugust 16, 1976 as submit d. Seconded by Councilwoman
Kukowski. Upon a voice te, all voting aye, May r Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik adopt th agenda with the addition of receiving a
communication from School Distri t.#11 .r arding meeting on Utilization of Community
Service Levy. Seconded by Counci oman ukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion r ied unanimously.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
Mr. Vern Moen, Chairman of the B rd of Sp 'ngbrook Park Nature Center, 7154 N.E.
Riverview Terrace, addressed th Council an tated that he, along with others,
were working with Dr. Dan Huff and more help needed. The additional help, as
he understands it, would com from several CETA mployees at no additional cost
to the taxpayer; andat thi time, he would ask t City Council for permission to
be granted for Dr. Huff to se these people at his iscretion. Councilman Starwalt
then asked the staff if a etter from the State Sena rs was on file with the City
indicating that it woul be lawful to do what was prop sed. Mr. Moen stated that
Dr. Huff believed he c Id document this.
MOTION by Councilman itzpatrick that CETA employees, as t y are available at the
discretion of Dr. H ff, are to be used under his direction. Seconded by Council-
woman Kukowski. C uncilman Hamernik then raised the question egarding the ethics
of City funds be' g used in the North Park area. Councilman Fi atrick then
commented that a concern here is whether or not City funds are eing disbursed
without being eimbursed, and he felt that City funds are being di ursed.
Councilman arwalt questioned the appropriate use of people being us under the
CETA progr m as well as the North Park proposal and that there were oth sections
of the Ci y that could use more attention. Councilman Fitzpatrick state that he had
Dr. Huf s recommendation that these people do have the time to work at bo North
Park a d on the CETA projects. Councilman Starwalt stated that he had no su
reco endation. Councilman Hamernik further commented that there is an agree nt with
the pringbrook-Foundation whereby City funds will not -be used and he believed
Ci funds would be used if CETA people are brought in since the grant is for the
tire City. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she never believed the CETA funds
ere the City's money and that it came from the government. Councilman Fitzpatrick
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 j MR. JOHNSON, 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 requeFted 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 furt.#r commented that referring to the
proposal as outlined, there is still an encroa hment 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.
1�7
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1976 PAGE 3
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 Nee 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 rezohing request, zoning ordinance amendment 7.OA 475-02, 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 carri-d 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
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
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, Mr. 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
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 d dication 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, he 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. #76-01. 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.
A
%
Niro;
;
9
1 G
111�50�
t 60
t�, L:
Wd
LL
2ND ST. N. E.
2,��y.
°Nj-N
Niro;
- EZ4
I.
2 1/2 ST. N. E.
ZiA z
rill' —
m f
A
lj
3 RD ST. N.E.
T -j I
E
UNIVERSITY
rn irk,
.7b%
7'
N
I t -r -f
4TH ST N. E.
I Mj
'A rn
z
rn
3 r
- Ei,
j,
!n
5TH ST. RAE.
A —N-7-
6TH ST. N. E.
z A
A
7 T H N; E.
CP
I
W n ;k � -«T ;
Ch
C
Lff.;
WAPAROJON ST. )N. E.
;4
I �lrmrl z
t-v.—VEFFERSON ST. N.E.
MADISO •ST. N.E.
SON
rill
z
•
zz t, MONROE- ST.' N.E.
\-O
9
z A
A
7 T H N; E.
CP
I
W n ;k � -«T ;
Ch
C
Lff.;
WAPAROJON ST. )N. E.
;4
I �lrmrl z
t-v.—VEFFERSON ST. N.E.
MADISO •ST. N.E.
SON
rill
z
•
zz t, MONROE- ST.' N.E.
\-O
38 900 -h
- 57Place
th Plac? N.E.
-
3
(�� N
S7 11
3.ell
4AM q do
cue6
CITY OF FRIDL.EY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
September 22, 1976
Mr: & Mrs. Peter Neururer
6501 74 1/2 Avenue North Re: Variance for 390 57th Place N. -E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55425
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Neururer°
On September 139 1976 , the Fridley City Council
officially approved your request for variance
with the stipulations listed below.
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and
return one copy to the City of Fridley.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call
the Community Development Office at 571-3450.
Sincerely,
E IWOL L. B 0179VEDAZIN7
CITY PLANNER
JLB/de
Stipulations:
1. That the stipulations conta%nAin 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 surface of this area be paved with covering acceptable to Staff(Hard Surface;
4e 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.
/!?6.1.16