VAR92-1740i O •
CITYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
September 24, 1992
Roger Luebeck
7528 Able Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Luebeck:
On September 21, 1992, the Fridley City Council officially denied
your request for a Variance,, VAR #92-17, to upgrade a nonconforming
structure when necessary repairs constitute more than 50 percent
of the fair market value of such structure, and to allow habitation
of a single family dwelling less than 1,020 square feet on the
South 115 feet of the East 74.5 feet of the West 149.5 feet of Lot
11, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside, generally located at 1571 -
75th Avenue N.E. The City Council asked staff to write a letter
to the Veteran Affairs Office advising them of the City's decision
regarding this property.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call
me at 572-3590.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
BD/dn
+ Staff Report
VAR #92-17, by Roger Luebeck, 1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
"Wish to restore old family home."
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Request
The petitioner requests that variances be granted for the
following:
(1) To be allowed to upgrade a nonconforming structure which
has been declared unsafe by the City when the necessary
repairs constitute more than 50% of the fair market value
of such structure.
(2) To allow habitation of a single family dwelling of less
than 1,020 sq. ft.
The request is for 1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
Site
Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with
an attached single car garage. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling, and there is additional R-1, Single
Family Dwelling zoning, to the north, south, east, and west
of the subject parcel.
Analysis
Section 205.04.03.B allows upgrading of a nonconforming
structure to a safe condition, provided the necessary repairs
do not exceed 50% of the fair market value of such structure.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide an
opportunity, when nonconforming structures and uses are
damaged more than 50%, for the City to bring them into
compliance with current codes.
Section 205.07.04.B requires that the minimum floor area of
a single family dwelling shall not be less than 1,020 sq. ft.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide
adequate house size and living area in residential buildings.
The single family dwelling unit was built in 1947 and has been
vacant since 1990. The dwelling is the petitioner's childhood
home which he wishes to restore. The VA foreclosed on the
subject parcel in 1990, and .in 1991, Chief Building Official
Darrel Clark informed the VA that the City would not issue a
building permit for the repair of the home. Mr. Clark
informed the VA that the structure is non -conforming and that
there were several structural items in need of repair which
rendered the building unsafe.
V
r
Staff Report 0
VAR #92-17, by Roger Luebeck, 1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
Page 3
Clyde Wiley, Acting Chief Building Official; Gary Ford,
Mechanical Inspector; and the Planning Assistant inspected the
structure on two occasions, first. for the exterior and second
for the interior. The following items will need to be
repaired in order for the dwelling to become structurally
sound:
1. Section 2516.0 of the Building Code requires the
following:
a. That any lumber used above the foundation be
a minimum of 6 inches above grade, i.e., the
foundation must be exposed.
b. The sill material must be of treated lumber,
cedar, or redwood.
C. There must be 18 inches of clearance under the
floor joists.
The dwelling is not in compliance with the
Building Code as approximately 50% of the house
is buried below grade, the sill lumber is
currently rotted, and there is no clearance
under the floor joists and in some areas the
joists are 2 by 4's instead of the minimum 2
by 8's.
2. Only two layers of asphalt shingles are permitted.
There are up to seven layers of asphalt shingles on
certain portions of the roof.
3. The rafters will need to be replaced due to over-
loading caused by the excessive layers of asphalt
shingles.
4. The vents for the furnace and water heaters are too
close to the upper level window.
5. The furnace and water heaters will need to be re-
certified to code due to the lack of use over the
past two years.
6. The floor in the bathroom will need to be replaced
entirely.
7. All the windows need to be replaced.
8. The dwelling has been water damaged. There is a
strong odor of mildew.
9. The garage door is rotted and broken. The sill and
casing for the garage door and the garage itself are
in the same condition.
4G
Staff Report 0 •
VAR #92-17, by Roger Luebeck, 1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
Page 4
10. The dwelling does not have the minimum number of
cold air returns.
11. The kitchen plumbing does not meet code.
12. The upper level is not a habitable area.
13. The wiring in certain rooms is questionable and
should be inspected as to code compliance by City
Electrical Inspector, Bob Clausen.
In addition, the Building Code states: "If an item or
room is to be substantially remodeled, the Code requires
that the area to be remodeled must be brought up to the
current code." This specifically addresses the bathroom
as the entire floor will need to be replaced. If a
permit is issued for replacement of the bathroom floor,
the entire bathroom must be brought up to code. The
bathroom does not meet the minimum room size requirement
set forth in the Building Code, and there does not appear
to be adequate area without substantially increasing the
size of the dwelling to meet the minimum room size for
the bathroom.
The Assessing Department has written an opinion that the
existence of the subject dwelling directly impacts the
property values of the surrounding parcels. The
structure is currently valued at $6,200. (Please see the
Assessor's comments included in the Staff Report.)
Recommendation
The necessary repairs to bring the dwelling into compliance
with the current code and to make the dwelling safe for
habitation far exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the
structure and exceeds the market value of the structure
itself. While the petitioner has an emotional attachment to
the dwelling unit, staff must recommend denial of the variance
request as the structure requires extreme repair and upgrading
to make the dwelling habitable which is directly contrary to
the spirit and intent of the Code.
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial
of the request to the City Council.
City Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals
Commission action.
4H
Engineering
�' rn Sewer
� Y wafer
a
it O Parks
O � Sheets
U Maintenance
U —
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bar , Community Development Director PW92-267
FROM: C yde . Moravetz, Engineering Assistant
DATE: September 16, 1992
SUBJECT: 1571 75th Avenue
Roger L. & Elsie N. Luebeck received a deed on the above mentioned property on July 24,
1991. (Certificate of Title No. 69238)
You requested me to research a mortgage default on the property as HUD now owns (or
will own) the property. All records indicate that Luebeck remains the owner and no
mortgage default has occurred. I checked with the County Recorders office including the
tax and lien files. I also inquired with the County Court system, Judgment Division, and
they did a search on owner going back 10 years. Nothing of record.
Let me know if I can be of any more help.
L'
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 17, 1992
TO: William Burns, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning As*istant
SUBJECT: Variance Request, VAR #92-17, by Roger Luebeck;
1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
Attached please find the above -referenced staff report. The
petitioner is requesting two variances:
1. To allow the repair of a nonconforming structure which the
City has declared unsafe, and in which the repairs exceed 50%
of the fair market value of the structure.
2. To allow habitation of a single family dwelling unit less than
1,020 square feet.
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the
request to the City Council.
At the September 8, 1992 City Council meeting, the variance request
was tabled for further research based on the advise of the City
Attorney. In addition, the petitioner was not present at the
meeting. The City Attorney suggested that additional information
be submitted to the City Council for the record to identify the
City Assessor's reasons for assigning the 1991 land and structure
value, and to have the building inspector verify that the cost of
the repairs constitutes more than 50% of the fair market value of
the structure.
Leon Madsen and Clyde Wiley have written the attached memos to
address the City Attorney's concerns. The City was made aware of
the abandonment of the building on approximately November 21, 1990.
The Assessing Department inspected the property and determined that
the building was abandoned, and assigned a reduced value to the
structure. Further, the building inspector has determined that it
would be cheaper to build a brand new house as compared to the cost
to repair the home to meet current codes. The costs of repairing
the roof and foundation alone would exceed the current structural
value.
Luebeck Variance
September 17, 1992
Page 2
Councilwoman Jorgenson also asked if the property has lost its
nonconforming status because it has been uninhabited for a period
of time. The, City Attorney's office believes that because the
Building Inspection and Assessing Departments determined that the
property has been abandoned for more than one year, that in fact
the structure has lost its nonconforming status.
Recommendation
The City Attorney and City staff recommends that the City Council
concur with the Appeals Commission action and deny the requested
variances.
MM/dn
M-92-567
BUELDING INSPECTION DIVISION MEMO
MEMO TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
MEMO FROM: Clyde Wiley, Building Inspector
MEMO DATE: September 15, 1992
REGARDING: Building Located at 1571 - 75th Avenue NE
Attached is a staff memo as to the feasibility of rehabilitation of this building. We made
this inspection on August 7, 1992. It would be my belief that just the repairs to the roof
and foundation would exceed the total value of the building which the assessor has set
at $6,200.00.
The City Zoning Ordinance 205.04.03B states nothing in this chapter shall prevent the
upgrading of a nonconforming structure to a safe condition when said structure is declared
unsafe by the City, provided the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than 50% of
the fair market value of such structure.
From seeing construction costs as submitted on plans brought in for review, I would
estimate that a minimum of $14,000.00 would be an under -estimate of the repairs needed
to bring this house up to code requirements.
What I really believe is that if the house was not there, a new house could be
constructed for less money than is needed to bring the existing house up to Code
requirements.
If I can be of further help, please let me know.
CEW/mh
M
1
CIIYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
September 10, 1992
Roger Luebeck
7528 Able Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Luebeck:
Your variance request, VAR #92-17, was scheduled for review by the
Fridley City Council on Tuesday, September 8, 1992. Since you were
unable to attend the meeting, the City Council tabled action on
your variance request until their Monday, September 21, 1992
meeting. It is important for you to attend this meeting in order
for the City Council to act on your variance request. If you do
not wish to have the City Council act on your request and wish to
withdraw it, I will need a letter stating such for our files. You
can send your withdrawal letter to:
Barbara Dacy
Community Development Director
Fridley Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your variance
request, please contact me at 572-3593.
Sincerely,
Michele McPherson, BLA
Planning Assistant
MM/dn
C-92-274
•
COF MEMO
TO:
Rick Pribyi, Finance Director
FROM:
Leon Madsen, City Assessor
SUBJECT:
1571 -75th Avenue
DATE:
September 9, 1992
M response to the Council's request for support for the current SMV, I submit the following:
Per our quadrennial review process of this neighborhood, we last made a physical inspection of this property on
$opt. 11, 1984. At that time, our records show that it was owned and occupied by Harlan and Lynn George. At that
inspection we noted a new asphalt driveway and a newly partially finished bedroom in the upstairs area. Our next
inspection was due in 1988 for the 1989 assessment. Our records indicate that we were unable to gain access to
the property on August 24, 1988. Our records do not indicate whether the property was vacant or occupied at that
time. For expedlancy, our office has a policy of not fully pursuing access to certain properties If it appears that
access will be difficult to obtain. This policy is based on certain parameters. If, by exterior viewing and review of
our existing records, It can be determined that an interior review will not reveal any need for substantial change in
value, we will make an estimate of the value based on past data. We will do this only once in an 8 year cycle.
Therefore, in this particular case, we made an estimated valuation for the 1989 assessment, based on the data we
had from our visit of 8-11-84. Although I cannot positively determine what the exact condition of the property
was, when our appraiser was there 8-24-88, it is suggested by the tack of any notations to the contrary, that it
was not in exceptionally unusual condition.
Sometime prior to 11-21-90, our office was verbally notified by the Building Inspection Dept. that this property
was abandoned and had sustained substantial damage, apparently, from vandalism. On 11-21-90, our
appraiser, Walter Mulcahy made a review of the property. At that time he made the following note on the property
record card; °house abandoned and vandalized, use storage value $5.00 per sq. ft.° This meant that Mr. Mulcahy
determoined that the structure had, essentially ceased to function as living quarters and was only valuable as a
storage structure. I believe, at the time, Mr. Mulcahy also considered notations by the Building inspection Dept,
regarding items required to be done before the structure could be considered inhabitable.
Therefore, in direct response to the Council's concern, and Councilmember Schneider's in particular, of how the
EMV could fall so drastically from 1990 to 1991; sometime between our inspection of 8-24-88 and when B.I.Dept.
informed us of the abandonment, the property became uninhabitable. Since our only contact with individual
properties is either during the quadrennial inspection, review of a building permit, or some unusual occurance such
as this, we are constrained by staffing from making EMV reviews more often.
A review of the recent past sales reveals the following:
Purchased 3-77 for $27,800
The market has approximately doubled since that sale, which would indicate the 1990
EMV, of $55,200, to be appropriate, assuming no physical problems with the property.
Purchased 5-91 for $35,000.
This clearly indicates something had happened to the marketability of the property.
Our Dept. did a study of the sales of single—family residential vacant lots for our 1992 assessment. The studv was
of 23 sales that took place within the time frame of 3-88 thru 5-91. The average sate price was $27,971. This
particular site is i 'short of the zoning ordinance requirement of 75' in width, and is 490 sq. ft. short of the required
9000 sq. ft. minimum in total area. Assuming that the site would gain council approval for construction of a new
residence, similar to the others in the neighborhood, the lot alone would be worth somewhere between $20,000
and $25.000. Assuming that the 5-91 purchase price of $35,000 is what the property is worth, the structure would
have a value of $10,000 to $15,000.
11
.7
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER S. 1992 PAGE 13
Mr. Overlie stated that, at most, Mr. Liska should only
constructing a two car garage. He stated that the neighbors o the
east who were in favor of this special use permit do.not the
property.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she would be ' favor of a
double car garage, but she has difficulty with a our car garage.
Mr. Liska stated that he would be happy wit a two car garage, if
he could not construct the four car garag .
MOTION by. Councilman X
ick to grant Special Use Permit,
SP #92-08, based on thcti of a 24 by 24 foot garage,
with the following stip: ) the accessory structure shall
be compatible with the welling unit and ,shall not exceed
14 feet in height; .(2) ioner shall provide a hard surface
driveway by September (3) the accessory structure shall
not be used for a homeon as per Section 205.03.34 of.the
Zoning Code; (4) the pr shall not repair automobiles for
profit; (5) there s 11 be no painting of automobiles in the
accessory structure (6) there shall be no storage of automobiles
on the propertyAr in the accessory structure which are not
Z
ed to a property owner; (7)'.all cars and car parts
ing or waiting restoration must be stored inside; and (8)
ulat' n Nos. 3-6 or any other provisions of the City Code
at d, theCity reserves the right to terminate the special' The petitioner, his heirs, and assigns understand that
ion of the.special use permit will require removal.of the
ry structure. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a
ote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
sly.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the. minutes of the
Planning Commission Meeting of August. 12, 1992. Seconded by
Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
9. RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 18, 1992•
A. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #92-17, BY ROGER LUEBECK, TO UPGRADE A
NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED UNSAFE BY THE
CITY WHEN THE NECESSARY REPAIRS CONSTITUTE MORE THAN .FIFTY
PERCENT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH STRUCTURE; TO ALLOW
HABITATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LESS THAN 1,020 SQUARE
FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1571 75TH AVENUE N.E.:
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this is a
request for two variances, one to allow the repair of a non-
conforming structure which the City has declared unsafe and in
which the repairs exceed fifty percent of. the fair market value of
the structure, and the other variance is to allow habitation of a
`��2a:a` `.:awti w.: :.:.. ��.�............ �........................ .a.....a ,..
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 14
single family dwelling unit less than 1,020 square feet. She
stated that the Appeals Commission recommended denial of this
variance request.
Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Luebeck submitted a petition from some of
the adjacent. home owners who had no objection to the variance, and
there is a letter from the Holmberg's who object to the variance.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that this is an area where there
could be a legal issue. He stated that he felt relatively
confident about the legal question provided that the valuation of
the property is correct and that the evidence on the' cost of
reconstruction is correct. He stated that in order to.support any
Council action perhaps the City Assessor and Building Inspector
should testify as to what they know about the property. He stated
that possibly, the Council may want to get an independent appraiser
to certify the value of the structure. He stated that the key
question is if the repairs constitute more than fifty percent of
the fair market value of the structure.
Mr. Herrick stated that another important question .is to determine
if the applicant was aware that the City had informed HUD that a
building permit 'would not be granted. He stated that if the
property was purchased and the petitioner knew the City's position,
this could have some bearing on the issue.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if the property is uninhabited for two
years, if it looses its nonconforming status.
Mr. Herrick stated that it does if it is a nonconforming use, but
this is a nonconforming structure, and he is not sure if this time
period applies to the structure as well as the use.
Ms. Dacy stated that she knows the petitioner was aware that this
item would be before Council, but she did not believe that he was
present.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item to the next.
Council meeting for further research on this issue. Seconded by
Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
10. CONSIDERATION OF'1993-
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Direct , stated that Addendum
No. 2 to the existing Joint Power<Agre ent covering the Community
Development Block Grant Program ally prohibits the use of
excessive force by an agency's 1cement personnel (in this
case, Fridley's Police Office t individuals engaged in
non-violent civil rights d onss and against physically
barring entrance to or ex' from facilities subject to nonviolent
UPONA VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI G AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU LY.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, secoded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend
approval of variance request VAR #91-16, by John Rainville,.to
reduce the side yard setbac from 10 feet to 1 foot with the
following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall complete a geo-technical survey
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The petitioner shall a ly for and receive a permit from
the Rice Creek Watersh d District prior to receiving a
building permit from th City.
3. The petitioner shall in tall erosion control measures
during and after construc ion as required by the City or
Rice Creek Watershed Dist ict.
4. The petitioner shall instal rain gutters on the dwelling
which shall drain towards t e street.
5. The petitioner shall sign a agreement which will hold
the City harmless for any dam ges to the dwelling or the
property.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated there are currently twk items pending for this
particular subject lot --the variance re est and the vacation
request. For the vacation request, the City Council will be
establishing a public hearing on September for their meeting on
September 21. After the public hearing, th Council will make a
decision on both requests. Ms. McPherson will notify the neighbors
when the public hearing will be held.
2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #92-17 BY ROGER
LUEBECK:
Per Section 205.04.03.B to upgrade a nonconforming structure
which has been declared unsafe by the City when the necessary
repairs constitute more than fifty percent (500) of the fair
market value of such structure,
Per Section 205.07.04.B.(1) to allow habitation of a single
family dwelling less than 1,020 square feet, on the South 115
feet of the East 74.5 feet of the West 149.5 feet of Lot 11,
Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to open the public
hearing.
4S
• -•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 11
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at 1571 - 75th Avenue.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and there is
additional R-1 zoning on all adjacent lots. The first part of this
variance request is for the -City to allow the upgrading of a
nonconforming structure and the second part is to allow habitation
of a single family unit of less than 1,000 square feet.
Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single
family dwelling unit with a single car attached garage. The
structure was built in 1947. It is the petitioner's boyhood home,
and he wishes to restore it. The Veterans' Administration (V.A.)
foreclosed on the property in 1990. In early 1991, the Chief
Building Official for the City informed the V.A. that the City
would not issue a building permit to repair the home as there were
several outstanding structural and code violations. The property
has been vacant since 1990.
Ms. McPherson stated the building inspector, mechanical inspector,
and she have inspected the property, first for the exterior and
second for the interior. The following are a list of items to be
repaired. There are some serious structural.problems.
1. Section 2516.0 of the Building Code requires the
following:.
a. That any lumber used above the foundation be a
minimum of 6 inches above grade, i.e., the
foundation must be exposed.
b. The sill material must be of treated lumber, cedar,
-or redwood.
C. There must be 18 inches of clearance under the floor
joists.
The dwelling is not in compliance with the Building
Code as approximately 50% of the house is* buried
below grade, the sill lumber is currently rotted,
and there is no clearance under the floor joists and
in some areas the joists are 2 by 4's instead of the
minimum 2 by 81s.
2. Only two layers of asphalt shingles are permitted. There
are up to seven layers of asphalt shingles on certain
portions of the roof.
3. The rafters will need to be replaced due to overloading
caused by the excessive layers of asphalt shingles.
4T
z
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 12
4. The vents for the furnace and water heaters are too close
to the upper level window.
5. . The furnace and water heaters will need to be recertified
to Code due to the lack of use over the past two years.
6. The floor in the bathroom will need to be replaced
entirely.
7. All the windows need to be replaced.
8. The dwelling has been water damaged. There is a strong
odor of mildew.
9. The garage door is rotted and broken. The sill and
casing for the garage door and the garage itself are in
the same condition.
10. The dwelling does not have the minimum number of cold air
returns.
11. The kitchen plumbing does not meet code.
12. The upper level is not a habitable area.
13. The wiring in certain rooms is questionable and should
be inspected as to code compliance by City Electrical
Inspector, Bob Clausen.
Ms. McPherson stated that while staff recognizes the petitioner's
emotional attachment to the dwelling, the cost of repairs would
exceed 50% of the fair market value of the structure. Approval
would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the code.. Mr. Wiley,
Acting Chief Building Official, is at the meeting if there are any
questions.
Dr. Vos asked the size of the structure at the present time.
Ms. McPherson stated the structure is less than 1,020 square feet.
Ms. Smith asked if there is any indication in the request that the
petitioner would be adding on to the structure.
Ms. McPherson stated she believed it is the petitioner's intent to
leave the size as it is.
Dr. Vos asked if the 50% figure is determined by including
materials and labor or materials alone.
Ms. McPherson stated she believed this included labor and
materials.
4U
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 13
Dr. Vos asked the value of the structure.
Ms. McPherson stated the value of the structure is $6,200.
Ms. Smith asked that for the first item on the list to be
corrected, would -the house have to be lifted to bring the
foundation up to Code?
Ms. McPherson stated yes, this must be done in order to replace
sill boards and to provide 6 inches of .clearance by the foundation.
Mr. Luebeck distributed to the Commission members copies of letters
from neighbors and a point -by -point document regarding repairs.
He stated he has contacted six neighbors who have a view of the
house. He had already met several neighbors several months ago,
but recontacted them after submitting the variance request, and
they have no problem with restoring.the property and leaving the
size the same. Four of those neighbors have written letters in
support and he had telephone conversations with another neighbor
who is now out of town. Another neighbor is at the meeting.
Mr..Luebeck stated he understands the costs, and he does not plan
to make the structure larger.
Dr. Vos asked the petitioner if $6,200 is a reasonable estimate of
the structure's value.
Mr. Luebeck stated no, it is too low. In 1991, the house was
valued at $33,000 and the lot is $22,000. He believed that the
value of the house, based on -size, style, and location, could be
$40,000 if it were cleaned and decorated properly. That is for
the structure and the lot.
Dr. Vos asked the size of the house. As soon as the petitioner
starts doing something to the house, the City wants to bring the
house up to Code. He understands that it is the petitioner's
intent to keep the house the size it is and not increase.
Mr. Luebeck stated, yes, he. is requesting to have the smaller size.
Ms. Beaulieu asked Mr. Luebeck if he knows how much the repairs
would cost.
Mr. Luebeck stated he has separated labor from materials. He plans
to do the work himself. He works to restore homes so his figures
will not include labor because he will take great pleasure in doing
the work. He has calculated materials for the exterior which is
where 3/4 of the materials will be needed. The major project.is
the bathroom floor, but this is not a large cost. There is much
labor, but a small material cost. The plumbing also is not
4V
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 14
expensive for materials. Just about everything is that way except
for flooring.
Mr. Luebeck stated that virtually all the expensive materials are
outside. He has allowed $500 for debris removal since he plans to
haul the debris away himself. He has allowed several hundred
dollars for miscellaneous expenses. He estimated the 'siding,
plywood, rafters, windows, garage doors, etc., to be under $4,000.
He is allowing $400 for rafters.' He looked very closely at the
roof and counted the.shingles. There are precisely two layers of
shingles on the garage and the newer portion of the house and three
layers on the north. The three layers go no more than 3 feet.
There could be four layers'. The rest of the roof has only two
layers. He does not think there is rafter sag due to excessive
shingles. There is some sag over the garage. In the addition
itself is a low pitch roof and the rafters looked good in that
portion. The most accessible rafters need to be replaced.
Mr. Luebeck referred. to therequirement for 18 inches of clearance
under the floor joists and stated it is much work to raise a house.
The soil is sandy and drains very well. He is planning a sheathing
of treated lumber, perfectly flat, on natural ground. He will send
a copy of the materials list to staff.
Ms. Smith asked if gravel was acceptable.
Mr. Wiley stated he looked at that and, in his own mind, he is not
sure that it is acceptable. He does not know where the frost
footing is.
Mr. Luebeck stated he has entered the crawl space. The soil is
sandy and drains well and is not subject to frost heave. There is
no sign of frost heave in 45 years. The house even without gravel
and without untreated wood has a remarkably low level of
deterioration. There is some deterioration in the corner where the
garage meets the house.
Dr. Vos stated he.noted a low spot in the driveway in that corner.
Mr. Luebeck stated there is more clearance under the house than he
thought. He has gone back and taken measurements throughout the
house. Half of the house has 2 x 4 joists but they are on 2 x 8
beams so the span is only a few feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the issue is that when the petitioner comes
for a permit, is the City comfortable in allowing him to spend more
than 50% of the market value house value to repair it?
Ms. Smith stated the estimate of $4,000 seems low, which comes back
to the issue of 50%.
4W
r
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 15
Ms. Beaulieu stated she knows the petitioner grew up in the home.
How long has the petitioner owned the property?
Mr. Luebeck stated he has owned the property just over one year.
Ms. Beaulieu stated the property was foreclosed on at one time.
What did the petitioner pay for the house and the lot?
Mr. Luebeck stated he paid $35,000.
Ms. Beaulieu asked the value of the lot itself.
Mr. Luebeck stated the lot is valued at $20,700.
Ms. McPherson stated the value in the staff report was taken from
the assessor's value.
Mr. Wiley stated the petitioner needs a building permit to occupy
the building. He cannot occupy the property as it now is. In.
order to get the building permit, he needs a variance.
Ms. Beaulieu asked the petitioner if the property was financed when
it was purchased.
Mr. Luebeck stated, yes, but it was not financed against that
property.
Mr. Luebeck stated he wanted the Commission to take into
consideration that the value of the property changed greatly from
1991 to 1992. As things stand now, he will request a higher value,
but that is not the reason for asking for a variance. -*As recently
as one year ago, the property was.valued at $33,000.
Ms. Jan Vogt presented a letter from Harold and Mabel Holmberg,
1584 - 75th Avenue, stating their objection to granting the
variance..They feel the size of the property devalues their home.
It is not pleasing to see a small home. Her objection is the
actual size of the house. Her house is a split entry and valued
at $93,000. When talking with realtors, the negative point was the
small property next door. By keeping the size the same, this is
devaluing her home. Her major objection is the size and the
devaluation'of her property.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive the
letter from Harold and Mabel Holmberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive the
petitioner's exhibits.
4X
0. •
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 1 PAGE 16
UPON A, VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Beaulieu asked the petitioner what he would do if the requests
are denied.
Mr. Luebeck stated he would take some time to think about his legal
options., but he would continue to press to restore the house.
Dr. Vos stated part of what the Commission is.going to act on is
the existence of a hardship. Is there something that makes this
property unique versus some other property in the neighborhood, and
why should the petitioner's property be less than 1,020 square feet
or why should the petitioner spend.more than 500 of the value?
Mr. Luebeck stated it is a sentimental hardship. Regarding the
Holmberg's letter, Mr. Luebeck stated he visited six properties who
have an unobstructed view of the house. From his house looking in
the.Holmberg's yard, he sees only trees. He did not purposely try
to cut out any neighbors. He does not have a view that the other
neighbors have. He did not feel the house is noticeable by the
Holmbergs. Regarding the issue that the neighbor's house is
devalued because of a small house, when a person decides to build
a.larger house, they did so knowing a smaller house existed. If
you make the claim that a small house will devalue a larger home
when selling, it would have also affected the value at the time of
purchase so that you are not really losing money. It is passed
from buyer to buyer. People will gain by improvements that are to
be made in this house.
Mr. Don. Luebeck stated he saw the construction under the second
part of the house. There are footings and they are deep below the
frost linea When the family moved in, there were several other
small homes in the neighborhood. On the corner of 75th, there is
another small home. To the west, 1559 - 75th Avenue is also a
small home which still exists today. These are roughly the same
size. Looking. at the property value, the City has a $6,000 figure.
The property values are set by sale. One buyer paid $27,000 for
the property. His brother paid $35,'000. If the lot is worth
$21,000, the value of the house is actually closer to $14,000. He
has looked at the reports and he is confident in the estimates.
He is confident that his brother can improve the property and keep
the costs under $7,000, which is a more reasonable estimate. His
brother does quality work and feels he can do the work within the
figures. In terms of size, the house can be enlarged, but it would
have to be done in the back. and would need to be extensive.
Expanding in the front would not work.
Mr. Roger Luebeck showed photos of the house.
Mr. Wiley stated that if the Commission grants the variance, it
would be doing the City a disservice as well as the petitioner.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 18, 1992 PAGE 17
After the petitioner gets done, the house.will be on a foundation
that does not come up to Code. If you come up to Code, the house
needs a new foundation, which will take the cost over 50% of value.
It is his opinion that over one-half of the foundation is rotted.
Mr. Roger Luebeck stated he has looked at the inside and disagrees.
He would like someone to come to the site and look at it.
Dr. Vos stated the Commission is concerned about the costs being
over 50% of the value to bring the house up to Code, which must be
done, and the size of the.dwelling. As soon as something is done
and it does not conform, then a variance is needed.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public.
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:38 P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she would recommend denial based on the
recommendations. She finds it hard to believe that these repairs
could be done for $4,000 and even the petitioner states that it
will not be up to code. She is more concerned about the 500 of
value. Some of the neighbors have expressed concern with the size
so that is also a concern, but she would recommend denial of both
variances.
Ms. Smith stated she would have to agree. To get the dwelling up
to code is much higher than the estimates here. As far as the
size, there are cases where they have allowed small homes because
of unusual circumstances. She does not believe that this is the
case with this lot. There is room to bring the property up to code
if the petitioner so chooses.
Dr. Vos stated he would recommend denial. The first request is to
bring the property up to code which will cost more than 50%. He
does not see a hardship and he does not think it is possible to do.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend denial
of variance request, VAR #92-17, by Roger Luebeck, to upgrade a
nonconforming structure which has been declared unsafe by the City
when the necessary repairs constitute more than fifty percent (50%)
of the fair market value of such structure; and to allow habitation
of a single family dwelling less than 1,020 square feet.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Dr. Vos stated this request will go before the City Council for a
final decision on September 8.
4Z
9
- -- - - - ?-llc.-a �1. iv
4J
5
+
F
SAW
von
.�
. -
..,,Azy
-
lot
AT
x
'
i
�;-
R't
MIS
i4
H,
5,v
�u"�k'
{'
HIS 1
K �1
ON
WIT
loco
yon I
OWN, AT
VMS
00
own
w set
A
i .''S c`
tai
,S •Cyi -_
' t (-
_ _
T
�
' �. .. ri �� G'�-
'.NS •.,�4. d �,., E -.- ♦ 4 - - ..�Si _`� �l
� - `k_ "
77,
CON 0
VLSI
'i
Lm.rfr.A.M.'^•
- 7�`
nit
lot
01
11 -
77
V...
tip _
+}
-
-
_
_
Jost
rut
0
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
•
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of
Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal
Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Tuesday, August 18, 1992,
at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of:
Consideration of variance request, VAR #92-17,
by Roger Luebeck:
Per Section 205.04.03.B to upgrade a
nonconforming structure which has been declared
unsafe by the City when the necessary repairs
constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the
fair market value of such structure,
Per Section 205. 07. 04.B.(1) to allow habitation
of a single family dwelling less than 1,020
square feet, on the South 115 feet of the East
74.5 feet of the West 149.5 feet of Lot 11,
Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the
opportunity at the above stated time and place.
DIANE SAVAGE
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley
Community Development Department, 571-3450.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter
or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than August
11, 1992 (one week before date of meeting).
Vasianoe Request 92-17 Nathaniel Battle
Roger Luebeck X545 75th Avenue`
Fridley, NAT 55432
Roger Luebeck Lee Sartell
7528 Able Street NE 1525 75th Avenue
Fridley, M 55482 Fridley, M 55432
Stanley Radosevidh
7551 Brigadoon Place Heinz Volker
Fridley,. NN 55432 7526 Br%gadoon Place
Fridley, M 55432
Resident Bradley Dennis
7531 Brigadoon Place 7532 Brigadoon Place
Fridley, NAV 55432 Fridley,, NN 55432
Mark Garfield Alfred Yee Litt
3028 Payne Avenue 7540 Brigadoon Place
Little Canada, M 5512 7 Fridley, M '55432
Leo Heyne Harold Holmberg
7550 Lakeside Road 1584 75th. Avenue
Fridley, EN 55432 Fridley, MN. 55432
Janet Cisewski Patricia Hallquist
1559 75th Avenue 7470 Lakeside Road
Fridley, NST 55432 Fridley, M 55432
Kristine Lindholt Allan Lambert
7500 Lakeside Road 1574 75th -Avenue
Fridley, M 55432 Fridley, M 55432
Farrel Maki Marlin Amter
7520 Lakeside Road 1564 75th Avenue
Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, NST 55432
Janice Vogt
1575 75th. Avenue
Fridley, MLT 55432
Nathaniel Battle
1545 75th Avenue
Frig
•
DATE:
TO : '
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Community Development Department
P1ANN3NGDMSI0N
City of Fridley
July 29, 1992
William Burns, City Manager
�-" Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
1571 - 75th Avenue N.E.
We wanted to give you advance .notice on this request. Roger.
Luebeck has purchased the above -referenced property (see location
map) and intends to restore it. The dwelling was constructed in
1947 and is Mr. Luebeck's childhood home. The home is severely
deteriorated. We anticipate that we will receive a variance
request from Mr. Luebeck because the repairs necessary to make the
dwelling livable and safe exceed 500 of the value of the structure.
Darrel Clark, former Chief Building Official, wrote the attached
letter to the VA Loan Guarantee Division which states that there
are a number of structural problems. In reviewing the property
with Clyde Wiley, Acting Building Official, he stated that the
bottom sill plates continue to rot, the roof is sagging and needs
to be rebuilt, and the home is set too low as compared to the
adjacent street. Staff will strongly recommend denial of the
variance request to the Appeals Commission and the City Council
based on the significant amount of repair required to bring the
structure up to current code. Our recommendation is unacceptable
to Luebeck-because he is emotionally attached to the property.
If there are any questions regarding the property, please contact
US.
MM/dn
M-92-491
DESCRIPTION;_
NAME ASSESSEQ` + ;4
• �` j- �- "� _ T t+ 1��..,n�E park.l
- h E
157 r. 1. V� A 1
�+kk t r S --
- ..x
•i r41 - i' 3-�':i b'it., '` r i.. T 2i, i 4' _ _ +:,:
_-eOn�pantiAn►r�; -��:- -:�-.z� ��. 5:.a,1-5 of ;the' E
.. '•�•.sz.�,-
--,;N
_.x _ -.�}, ; �'G -sY k Y' - aV-r�u•'wf� z f �'.'. .af'd .'l+ s sm'> :`€F %`s _ 0
t'1 qq
�� TIP OP78191k.DING t a x t9 �� a
r
41,
„ 92
OWN
'77 om
R t
"RUCTURE COpMMENTS TO L MESTEAD JPO HOf
x TTO"�AL
DIDr
r1 r^.. � " ' .r Y - ' • * n
4 2
16
? i }h/
v,'
� r" s x.} < �- .+ '� _ . y a �t ia'r t t'r `�`� :� , V. ? j Y fix •^ � , j -
}r y'. 5 -,.-e, '� f - � `t.'17• §'� I - � si. � i j b' f
3 �k�r i"• - T ,. t_ � /'�. s� { �,x • s tSu: :�'' ly $; r„ A I't ' � r '-;3 _ .
ki„". d. -r11. '4- �.3+r'r E' i s'��+�- t'Qyr,.�_� .r•'4 � Y ,e - -� � r L
::.;i >1,.:-
e+l�" f;. .:i �fsb _:r
linlb,
r r
'r
� 7
4 �' ter: 4 1> i ial
ti'a t P
� ': � i "IS f { �.a.: P •cif y. 1 ! 1 '!1 A � _ 3 _9 t' ' � -1 _
<
zt ^-
0,4 ��6 � �-� � / --A
r� C,-- �-� UAA t _6
6t;4 q�v— At, =Rdoc�U
`i� L�� V4j-\, U/j�j (At
ra - /S - O�A-�
0 0
Edward M. Treska, Division Manager,
PropeRecords and E Taxation
NOKA COUNTY ANOKArty COUNTY 325 MAIN ST.,
1 9
TATEMENT OF PRORORTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2 ANOKA, MN 55303 421-4760, ext. 1153
Taxpayer: Owner:
LUEBECK ELSIE N & ROGER L 9999 LUEBECK ROGER L & ELSIE N
7528 ABLE STREET NE 1571 75TH AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY; MN 55432
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................
SPRING LAKE PARK LAKESIDE
CITY OF FRIDLEY Property Class:
RES NO -HST RES NO -HST
S 115 FT OF E 74.5 FT OF W New improvements
N/A 0
Market Value:
55200 27100
1 Use this amount on Form M-1 PR to see if you're eligible for a property
tax refund. File by August 15. If box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes
and are not eligible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.00
2. Use this amount for the special property tax refund on schedule 1 of Form
M-1 PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.00
YOUR PROPERTY TAX And How ltis Reduced ByThe State
3. Your property tax before reduction by state paid aids and credits. . . . .
2826.03 1305.31
4. Aid paid by the state of Minnesota to reduce your property tax . . . . . .
1139.49 520.96
5. Credits paid by the state of Minnesota to reduce your property tax:
A. Homestead and agricultural credit , . I . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
0.00 0.00
B. Other credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.00 0.00
6. Your property tax after reduction by state paid credits . . . . . . . . . .
1686.54 784.35
WHERE YOUR PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS GO
519.98 250.46
7. County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. City or town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
262.18 117.29
9. School district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
799.09 371.29
10.Special taxing districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
105.29 45.37
10A. Tax Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N/A 0.00
1013. Fiscal Disparity Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N/A 0.00
1 1.Total property taxes before special assessments . . . . . . . . . . . .
1686.54 784.35
12.Special assessments added to this tax bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.00 0.00
13.Your total property tax and special assessments
1686.54 784.35
14.Pay this amount no later than May 15, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . .
392.18
15.Pay this amount no later than October 15, 1992..............................-........... ..
392.17
W; ug
N
'FiF
............ ".xxx�x�',
TO AVOID PENALTY,PAY ON OR BEFO OCT 15 TO "OID PENALTY,PAY
ON OR BEFORE MAY 15
PLEASE INCLUDE PIN NUMBER ON CHECK PLEASE INCLUDE PIN NUMBER ON CHECK
PIN: R12 30 24 11 0063 NA 00534924 PIN: R12 30 24 11 0063 NA 00534924
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ANOKA COUNTY MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ANOKA COUNTY
326 E. MAIN ST.,ANOKA, MN 55303 325 E. MAIN ST.,ANOKA, MN 56303
PAY THIS AMOUNT 392.17 PAY THIS AMOUNT 392.18
LUEBECK ELSIE N & ROGER L 9999 LUEBECK ELSIE N & ROGER L 9999
7528 ABLE STREET NE 7528 ABLE STREET NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
005349242000039217
INDICATE ADDRESS CORRECTIONS ON BACK
005349241000039218
00534924F000078435
INDICATE ADDRESS CORRECTIONS ON BACK
ASSESSOR'S C.t IWTS O V —17 ,
VARENCE FROM MIMMUM S129AT 1571 —76 M AVE
It Is the option of the Assessor's UIt%a Ow the oontinuation of the non—conforrnarm of this prop®rtY Is contrary
to maintenance of market valvas Web of surramding property. In support of that apinlon Is the tad that the
nelativiely new property at 7M Brig Pie, directly to the rear of the subject sold for $96,000 in Sept of
1991, which Is less than our 1-2-92 EMV of $10D,600. We made a review of the BrIgadoon property and
consequently raced the 1-2-92 EMV to $98,200. This was done to reflect the negative olW of the subject
property on the sale property's value.
Aft of the surrounding propertiesare in considerably better condition and ace properly cordonning uses. We can
only expect that some of these property owners will be in to obtain reductions m t#Wr values If this condition
continues. In fact, for our current revaluation In the area, we may well And that we need to revalus the surrounding
properties, taking into moderation this situation.
Based on the age, size and bass strtctued boo" of to property, it Is doubtflul that any amount of ramKMkmft
will ging It to a quality level epproaci ft that of the neighbors. Major upsUft ring and bdngkg Into code
conformance may be beneficial If done In a pmftsswW and timely manner.
We reao mnend dmW of ach* #rat Nis drart of these types of n or upgrading.
41
T'K"' I t r 'it r f! jr!"
S C 07 11"", tot 1.z ;. 0 s" i;s t ;.' . t a1 : i , -u: f ; ' e; 111 e:I:-- c -lb P C --
-q om to ows n nqrn "! -':*.`--%:
1 , 1va in ;x1p a Ay so *9 vw% a 1 evo i* z AT I .WE ;v vu `.74... W.
(&6 10"�Qj 0 : QQM � 0 %1 A.;
Dwouvan Ov 1 U Co. v: a Irmo, I Oxwo 0: - .6t ., a. 0 ,e loan, WO won 10% to, a !"i:
yacnownua goo owl= Sias, a 601651v if . ., YA,zoi t•. &,$ INV
p n a W a an W *S1 v 1 to 6 i v n k y ti -C, --'.• u 1 t3 :-'H
lkxzr: gm w I= IMS
COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW
FILE NUMBER FILE DATE MEETING DATE FILE DESCRIPTION
CITYOF 40 7-28-92 � 8-18-92 VAR 92-17, Roger Luebeck, To allow a
FRIDLLY smaller dwelling than allowed by code.
-_ ,1571 757 Avenue
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND RETURN TO PLANNING DEPT.
COMMENTSWmic
/ / ,/,►� t ,� /
l
r f
I�SCOTT E. Z,,`�►
'M
M. F �
I ❑ JIM H.
I❑ CHUCK M.
•
•
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FR DLEY, MN 55432 0
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM
PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached
Address: I S -71 7 5-!M Ay N Fr�ley
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Legal description: �°-1� , 115 ' ep ops c st 7't• 5 Feet 4 we sft 1 * 9.. S - f e o f
Lot 1I Block Tract/Addition 4r%n!� Oke fork Ldkeskde.
Current zoning: kesxaeAt %a1 Square footagetacreage
Reason for variance and hardship: W . s1,, t o rest -re *W*a 64 -i &.AAAI h % wee .
Section of City Code:
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No x If yes, which city?
If yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME®aer Lv�e�beck
ADDRESS_ '75'a% A��e st NG' Fr%&fie l
DAYTIME PHONE 7 `i -f 6 X X
SIGNATURE l DATE 7 3c 9�—
PETITIONCER INFORMATION
NAME
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DAYTIME PHONE
DATE
Fee: $100.00 $ 60.00 �~ for residential properties
Permit VAR # Receipt # /-1 y 7 7P
Application received by: M-
Scheduled Appeals Commission
Scheduled City Council date: —
ff
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
Applicants for vacations must submit the legal description of the
parcel (easement, street, etc.) to be vacated.
Complete site plans, signed by a registered architect, civil
engineer, landscape architect, or other design professional, to
include the following:
A. General:
1. Name and address of project
2. Legal description (certificate of survey may be required)
3. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant,
engineer, and owner of record
4. Date proposed, north arrow, scale, number of sheets, name
of drawer
5. Description of intended use of site, buildings, and
structures including type of occupancy and estimated
occupancy load
6. Existing zoning and land use
7. Tabulation box indicating:
(i) Size of parcel in sq. ft.
(ii) Gross floor area of buildings
(iii) Percent of site covered by building
(iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface
(v) Percent of site covered by green area
(vi) Projected number of employees
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or
place of assembly
(viii) Number of parking spaces required
(ix) Number of parking spaces provided including
handicapped
(x) Height of all buildings and structures and number of
stories
B. Site Plan:
1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and
proposed structures with distance from boundaries,
distance between structures, building dimensions and
floor elevations
2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural
features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc.) as well
as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation and storm
water retention ponds. Calculations for storm water
detention/retention areas.
3. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress
showing widths of property lines, turning radii abutting
rights-of-way with indicated center line, paving width,
existing and proposed median cuts, and intersections of
streets and driveways
4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and
dimensions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking lot
aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes,
emergency access (if necessary), public and private
streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, direction of
traffic flow, and traffic -control devices
5. Landscaping Plan
6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash
enclosures
7. Location and screening detail of rooftop equipment
S. Building elevations from all directions
9. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing
water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance of
hydrant to proposed building
0
•
FJ
This letter is in reference to my approval for
repairs and reconditioning of 1571 75th ave.
For my approval Mr. Luebeck has stated that this
will be his personal residence, not a rental unit.
With the proposed repairs and work I have seen so far,
I believe Mr. Luebeck will recondition this house to
blend with the neighborhood. I do not have a problem
with the house staying the same size that it is.
Brad Dennis
7532 Brigadoon P1
I have no objection to the owner of the property
at 1571 75th Av improving the property at its present
size (830 sq ft).
Allan W. Lambert
1574 75th Av
I have no objection to the owner of the house at 1571 75th Av
restoring the house. Its present size presents no problem to me.
Mrs Donald Cisewski
1559 75th Av
Petitioner: I had a phone conversation with the property owner
at'?Sa4, Brigadoon PI during the first week of August 92.
He told me he had no objections to the restoration of
of my property and said he had no objections to the
current size of the house. He is currently out of town.
/� ^`
^�*�- � ���
m
r�e he Z' f Mir ��v~
M4 ,/~ '4' .44uwrer
'910wui A "~f-er
'
^�N�'
. °�m��
,
^ =
~~
a. I intend to expose the foundation by trenching around the
house and garage to a depth of two feet below ground level,
and filling with gravel up to ground level.
b. The siding will be replaced. The sill plates will be
replaced at the same time, and treated plywood will be
installed as per diagram 1.
C. I entered the crawl space and measured clearance throughout
the newer (west) half of the house. At least 80% of these joists
have clearance of at least 18 in. At least 95% have
clearance of at least 16 in. The remaining 5% have clear-
ance of 12 -16 in. The 5 x 8 support beam has clearance of
4 - 12 in. At some point in time, someone had shoveled.a
space in which to crouch while working on plumbing. They
heaped the dirt alongside their work pit, thus obstructing
the view of the crawlspace, and making it appear that there
is little or no clearance.
In the older (east) half there is clearance of at least
18 inches under the joists around a 3 foot perimeter of that
area. There is clearance of B - 10 inches under the remainder.
There are 4 support beams (2x8) with clearance of at least 12 inches
around the 3 ft perimeter. There is only 1 inch clearance
under these joists under the remaining area. However, the
soil is very sandy and completely dry everywhere. I have
brought a sample. There is no sag or decay in any of the
beams or joists throughout the house, and the floors are solid
underfoot, with the exception of directly under the bathroom
plumbing (which was the result of leaking plumbing.)
The 2x4 joists are spanning only 4 feet (the spacing of the
beams). The joists themselves are spaced 16 inches.
2&3.
There are two layers of asphalt shingles on the west half
of the house, and on the garage. There 2 1/2 layers (rolled
roofing plus two layers) of asphalt shingles on the remainder.
The one exception is at the bottom of the roof at the east
edge. There are no more than four layers at that edge, and
this thickness extends no more than two feet upwards. See
diagram 3. Therefore, there has been no overloading due to
excessive shingles. There is no sag in the house portion of
the roof, with the exception of over the addition (utility
room). The addition roof has a low pitch and these rafters
will be replaced with larger ones. The garage rafters will
also be replaced. They were possibly weakened from a garage
fire around 1960.
..
There is, in effect, no upper level window, since the upper
level is attic space. The existing window will be replaced
by studs and siding.
5.
6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
I will have this done.
This is also my intention.
I agree that all but 5 windows need replacing, though this
is not a strong point of contention with me.
The house has been boarded up for two years. The water
damaged materials have only recently been removed. This
odor will not last.
It is also my intention to replace the garage door, and
as mentioned earlier, the sill plates.
I will install more cold air returns.
This will be brought up to code.
Agreed. This is attic space.
This shouldn't pose a problem. There seems to be plenty of
outlets, and %"m very experienced in wiring.
There is an additional comment on the bathroom size. But
part of the reason for requesting a variance is the size issue.
The bathroom has a full-size tub, and there are no restrictions
of movement around the toilet or sink. The bathroom measures
5 ft by 6 ft 8 in. It could be expanded into the adjoining
utility room to the east. This adjoining room currently
measures 9 ft B in by 9 ft 4 in. See floor plan.
I would also like to point out that I am used to taking on
large projects. I am an independent painting contractor
specializing in whole -house paint removal in the Kenwood area
of Mpls, where the houses are very large, very old, and veryornate. These houses are in tough shape when I'm hired, and
I perform all the necessary carpentry and waterproofing work
associated with these jobs. I have also been involved with
many remodeling projects as part of my business. I am very
experienced in carpentry, plumbing, and electrical, as well as
painting and waterproofing considerations.
Finally, on the assessor's comments:
Each builder of the neighboring houses was aware of the
existance of the property in question at the time they made
the decision to build. Each subsequent buyer of these houses
was equally as aware, and excersized their free will. If the
property in question affects the purchase price of a neighboring
house, then why should we expect it to not similarly affect
the selling price of that neighboring house when it is
some day sold? That is, if one gets a bargain when they buy,
why should they expect full price when they sell? The savings
are passed from buyer to buyer. For this reason, I see
no grounds for complaints about losses in house values unless
the appearance of the property in question were to worsen
after someone bought a neighboring house. But since I intend
to make the house more attractive than it was when any of the
neighbors bought their houses, they actually stand to gain
when comparing their purchase prices to their potential
selling prices.
I hope the city isn't primarily concerned with creating w
as large a tax base as possible. OBigger and more expensive
isn't the defining element of "quality of life". I'm a quiet,
neat neighbor with an eye for aesthetics. The city needs as
many residents like that as possible.
jurisdiction, except work lta:atw ill J " regulated in tills wuo, .�,,.
and poles, mechanical equipment not specifically
hydraulic control structures. different
Whe specific case, different sections of this codes specify
estricti
materials, ods of construction or other requiremeween a nts,t a in,r�m_nt and*
shall govern. Where the specific iorequiremnflict ent shall be applicable.
specific requirement,
e reference is made to the appendix, the provi
Wherever in this codsions in e
appendix shall not apply unless specifically adopted.
gpplication to Existing Buildings and Structures
v" �" SntletNGlaadti}itOAS,S)teolt$)
4aa/elttddtngs eUe�
, 1,41
'as8p1a�� gGrquP+Otvlsto;
.ystalCatio
(b) Additions, Alterations tions or repairs may
or Repairs.,Addinu-ingthe existing building or
be made to any building or structure without req provided
structure to comply the addition,
with all the requirement of this code, p
alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure.
Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure
...vuuu support embedded In
is, ouuu. wood embedded in the ground or in direct contact with the earth and used
for the support of permanent structures shall be treated wood unless continuously
below the groundwater line or continuously submerged in fresh water. Round or
rectangular post, poles and sawn timber columns supporting permanent struc-
tures which are embedded in concrete or masonry in direct contact with earth or
embedded in concrete or masonry exposed to the weather shall be treated wood.
Treatment shall conform to U.B.C. Standard No. 25-12, Tables Nos. 25-12-B
3. Plates, sills and sleepers. All foundation plates or sills and sleepers on a
concrete ofmasonry slab, which is in direct contact with earth, and sills which rest
on concrete or masonry foundations, shall be treated wood or Foundation red-
wood, all marked or branded by an approved agency. Foundation cedar or No. 2
Foundation redwood marked or branded by an approved agency may be used for
sills in territories subject to moderate hazard, where termite damage is not
frequent and when specifically approved by the building official. In territories
where hazard of termite damage is slight, any species of wood permitted by this
code may be used for sills when specifically approved by the building official.
4. Columns and posts. Columns and post located on concrete or masonry
floors or decks exposed to the weather or to water splash or in basements and
which support permanent structures shall be supported by concrete piers or metal
pedestals projecting above floors unless approved wood of natural resistance to
decay or treated wood is used. The pedestals shall project at least 6 inches above
exposed earth and at least I inch above such floors.
254
1305.0400 SECTION 203.
UBC Section 203 is amended to read as follows:
40
0�
CIiYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
April 1, 1991
Ms. Ann Keller
Loan Guaranty Division
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Reg. Ofc/Insurance Cntr
Bishop Henry Mipple Fed Bldg
Fort Snelling
St Paul, MN 55117
Re: 1571 - 75th Avenue NE, Fridley, MN
Dear Ms. Keller:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of Friday, March 29, 1991 when we
discussed the disposition of the home at 1571 - 75th Avenue NE, Fridley.
Please recall that we informed you that the City of Fridley will not issue a
building permit for the repair of the home. The home is a legal nonconforming
structure because it does not meet the minimum square footage for a single family
house in Fridley. Fridley's Zoning Code will not allow a nonconforming structure
to be repaired if the cost of repair exceeds 50 percent of its value.
There are also many other structural problems with the home; the foundation is
inadequate, the bottom sill plates are rotting, the floor joists are only 2 x
4's and are way overspanned, and the home presently sets to low allowing the
siding to be buried in the ground in many areas.
The home is presently secured, however its mere existence only precipitates a
problem and an eyesore. Therefore, would you please proceed to remove the
structure and its foundation, and clean the site so that the area may be kept
clean and the grass cut.
If it is your desire to have the City remove the structure and clean the site,
we will need a release from the Veteran's Administration before we can advertize
for bids.
If you have any questions, please call me at 571-3450.
DGC/mh
.4P
/2, T. 30, R. 2 4
F FR/DEFY
n
VAR #92-17
Roger Luebeck
Ee
THIS IS A COMPILATION OF RECORD.
THEY APPEAR IN THE ANOKA COU
OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA SHO'
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY
REFERENCE PURPOSES AND THE CC
TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINE
539/2
LAKE
SPRING NECORNER
SEC. /P
13 14
n13 ROLAND W. ANDERSON
COUNTY SURVEYOR
ANOKA COUN", MMESOTA
96 LOCATION MAP
0 0
VAR 492-17
`Roger Luebeck
9C ZONING MAP
t tcxtek
•
VAR #92-17
ORoger Luebeck
Q 10. Yr 06v-.. -W 1
tja1N C rm c4 SecAtov---
9M
To
v%0,,Y Nves �o
ca Y- F k o, v-,—
Lkttl�ty
16` o'
11
911"
X v o
414 lot
N
I V
n
PT,
•
AR #92-17
Roger Luebeck
AA`O(OA
IA %l, -y
ta�ro,wI,
�(� S � l) �....�e° _ � uk �. ;��.. F -' � /9 � k'►� e( 681
° n r
Pa
\l •. `� /2p�,�► y � r.G �' 770% � � � 1
7
(k� X639 k�6 �� , �.<` W o �6 3 / al o oo ;� �• 9 . �0 (/.01
�3
P147 6w7
1����1
L fo
�� ro "Qg .1116-71a76TH AVE- NE. ,
NZ 1° 8V�r 113 Q , p 6 7.ts6 N .6 f'/('�ti� /34%
13 . �°�' z W8 is �\ a •: tt \
o 7lip (160f
r l d 1 �� -14 ,� 7601 a 0 l�' y /5
17
/
ao s 1 r 40,
,sq �� b
lybo mat` /fza l) p . fi ( 4
ADD.
/97 : `gip Wfill N�
90,0/ J B9e „r '� RBRIGAD fi :• -
/ o� '� °t �ko
is.o /O ° z16 , °1171 /i7./ °
aao 7s , . (i/sod y °
l'n5 2 c ° •
e. u /°s'isyocw 79 1/9.9`9
�7 `I� �..' \N u ° • /�V h7l
•?C�'/ N
� a LL /S7S �s'oo
So3 (�)+e 30 (W) PA [W) (�4 LglfESlD 66
emir..70
sP
79 BB 79 33
ITOR' S 1� , (90J =��� 16�D � ��� . I� 1410 o
g0
Mar/ir1 l'y� 2 '� 3 � hJ � ° 2 t 3
U) ) (44) �
Ps.A•s oePf. J e� .Halter a y ��y g�
Par t1 OeP><J h �3� , ky�/42 SIP'S. i7 0 �Im �
� Nh s6)/¢ xa a 4
ROM Pork
330. 2 i�,�
I3c m� 4 /Ia 4 b °�1 //o ..../io..... o B W
s. e , 6 � � � M%i '143
0 1 1, 5 9° � I S� � -1� l Z � � 9k� 8 r.l aD
of (9011 z
Y.
4 41q
�> ,
wt B6 94 .
a 141 1v� (0°�°tom �L�7y1 7 u
B " /� li'11 B
0 3 m IV8 N%87 i'¢
/tti,asco
,•�1\.�otl ��` 33
4a sa�b 1. • a /io ' a o" 1533 D°,dib 6 e
STREET '
._.... ,
/M 420 /jp �/ (y1) / /a f•/0 Z `%� arts rate1 0Cs) ab) " l "1316
I4'10 1476 ` 1462 / ° Ys�lc (se)\ ��> �� '+� �aR EN IWC ° (550 N
CE
N ('0) °. I lsoi Via) 2 I o ° ° (seo�
(,/7¢0) v(//e/�Toy)/�� y//�„( ° u o y/f) x ? I A �_ d �7)
24' ° : I. of A 106. , �O cr '� t (D� ;ft _
li (� -1-e
�
� ?3Go
�88� `qa 1t1 (xJ +ySO e Zr” CSC) ' IsBI ISgI - �a a 8
SUBD
L AV;1 f� IS60-�y 71.ts rats Rr (` oma)
/z)
t
7 `�
� ' _ "'.b.
--�. �a
1,�\
\�
riV