Loading...
VAR 04.80=rrY OP PRI®L EY, MINNESOTA (612) 571-3450 PUBLIC WORKS/CODE ENFORCEMENT APPLICATION TO APPEALS CO(',Iii I SS I ON aerer age Approved by Date 910-F23 2 1 of 2 1 800 7-17-79 Name > C7 e Address, Ske tv Phone 7041-0(P90 Legal f Lot No. Block Description - Variance Requests attach etc., where applicable) No. Trac plat oe s or Addn. vey of property showing bui ding, variances, Z�2 List specific hardship(s) which requires the variance(s) juate Meeting Date Fe ct--� �.o� Receipt N OC9II�1�.�' Sign ur Comments & Recommendations by the Appeals Commission City Council Action and Date For InieTofll Use j For Internal Use "W" crrV OF FRIOLEV, SUBJECT APPLICATION TO APPEALS COMMISSION r miNr4esoi A ' (Staff Report) tmen N s on Number Rev o98 Approved y Oct; PUBLIC WORKS/CODE ENFORCEMENT 910-F23 2 2 of 2 800 7-17-79, Staff Comments: Board members notified of meeting by — List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan • ���G�� Name Date To Attend Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified M/M Richard Becker, 340 79th Inlay N.E. _ Howard Richner,409 79th Way N.E.- 9 Nellie C. Lindsay,379 79th Way N.E. _ Joseph A. Skow, 371 79th !day N.E. M/M Lester Freese, 369 79th Way N.E. — M/M Harry Lambrecht, 311 79th Inlay N.E. Jo Ann Julson, 341 79th lday M.E. — M/M Carl Peterson, 7942 East River Rcad .M/M Winfred Morphew, 7948 Wast River Road -.M/M Larry Anderson, 389 Longfellow St. HE' r Bruce Kothman, 386 Longfellow St. h,E.' _,'M/M Arthur Canton, 402 Longfellow St. N.E. t. M/M Louis Sweeney, 410 Longfllow St. N.E. For Internal Use "W" ., 6431s `t):w1VERSITY AVENUE N.E.,!' FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Ci ,5'6434 TELEPHO'.NE•.. (,812)57.1 -?4450 N... , .April 1,8,-111980 NOTICE -OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the-Appeals'�Commission of the City of Fridley - __..wi l,] .caaduct. a publ. ,q -hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 Uni ver- sity Avenue Northeast at 7:30 PA on'l`uesday,April 29 "1980, in regard•- t�- tfi� fol l owi•n g -.mattes : _ Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Pri dl ey` Cffy Code, to - reduce 'the' s'fde yard' - - "on_.the. l..iving.. side..ef a,_house from the required ` 7 10 feet, to 3 feet, to allow the construction " - of a-1.4• foot _by :32 foot- addition _to_.a•n. 'existing. _ a house already constructed with a 3 foot. side y#d , _ setback`kacted ;on:: Lots r7 'and' &,' Bleck;:2, Spring Brook Addition, the same being 371 79th Jay N.E. , , Notjce is hereby g1ven that a, persons having an interest therein will be 1 - givn ars oppor..tuniy_ t4_.� .heard at the above .time and place. s VIRGINIA SCHNABLE CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION 0, " loot : '-TFre-Appea••l-s4Commissiom(-will have the final action on ::his request, unless the.; are obJeCtID1S from surrour�d�ng neighbors, tree City Staff, or Lre'}�eti'tion�r "does not agree*,with'•tfie' Commissions decision. If any of these events occur,: the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Commission WiT11 i only a recommendatian from.the- Appeals Commission. ` T7, m. w..... W. Item #2 April. 29, 1980 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 371 - 79th Way N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for living area. Public purpose served by this requirements is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The existing house was built three feet from the property line and we have to continue at this line to have an addition. We need the additional space as there is only one bedroom now and no utility room. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: If the Commission approves this request, the west wall of the addition can not have any openings and must be constructed for one hour fire resistance. I MATS TAW " cs w I - I H -to , , ryn I STY X, "Munr%Y vyill, jj AM 1 qgy .1 � 5 olzjui. -F-fw n, been ."ClAy i90 as, '"at" wAnL015; aw.7r t J i H bon 8JLm6p &Z of aj IT K 0C. 1 slyS 1110--, MOOS& 11 Mulml azws aaqo MATS TAW nwad "Munr%Y vyill, LES oil! 71160= sc em -F-fw n, been ."ClAy pill Oro lour O. L Item #2 April 29, 1980 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 371 - 79th Way N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIREIMIT: Section 205.053, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for living area. Public purpose served by this requirements is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The existing house was built three feet from the property line and we have to' continue at this line to have an addition. We need the additional space as there is only one bedroom now and no utility room. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE,S9: If the Commission approves this request, the west wall of the addition can not have any openings and must be constructed for one hour fire resistance. t t _. � 5 - 'a� o _ .- ;: qqY k8t5-oST iI .. .. .._.... ..... _ ..._ «, .....- +...�. www ..... ,...... �: � 3� � .r .. .. .... .-. .... .. ...... ....r. c.. { i �. y t;t � �• R e i � 4 1 ^ ... � .i +�+ w .. i. . � r ' j � • � , 1 �..• .l• , 3 . � i � j , i .. � ... ..r t } 3 s. , j � ' • � �� � r [`{ C z t 1 R j � } 1 1 M l . �� � ', �tl .. t � G 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 April 18, 1980 Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 Univer- sity Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 29, 1980, in regard to the following matter: Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard* on the living side of a house from the required 10 feet, to 3 feet, to allow the construction of a 14 foot by 32 foot addition to an existing house already constructed with a 3 foot side yard setback, located on Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Spring Brook Addition, the same being 371 79th Way N.E. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above.time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABLE CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Com,nission will have the final action on ;:his request, unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or th,e*petitior,er does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Coimlission with only a recommendation fircm the Appeals Commissiun. Item #2 April 29, 1980 AD14INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 371 - 79th Way N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIREIMIT: Section 205.053, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for living area. Public purpose served by this requirements is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The existing house was built three feet from the property line and we have to continue at this line to have an addition. We need the additional space as there is only one bedroom now and no utility room. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIZI: If the Commission approves this request, the west wall of the addition can not have any openings and must be constructed for one hour fire resistance. 7u-2189 a r t r r . Z�7'�Yfrt.j�`G I 40 7Y71.1 y jr Y!//!l�.IE+��/iCr %4 j���: l.�ac/C/:/Jxj6f %cl7«I IA/ CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS CO A,iIS ;ION 11B T114G TUESDAY, APRIL 29, . 1980 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson kl-s. Schnabel called the April 29, 1980, meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7133 P.lai. ROLL CALL Members Presents Pis. Schnabel, Isis. Gabel, Mr. Barna, Mr. Plemel "Members Absents. 1a1r. Kemper Others Presents Darrel Clark, City of Fridley, Chief Building Official Michele Foster, Rauenhorst Corp. Alfred L. Nelson, Burlington -Northern, ?900 Xerxes Ave. So. Joyce Y. Holmberg, 576 iviain Street N.E. Sue Keppler, 100 58th Avenue N.E. John Keppler, 100 58th Avenue N.E. Alfred J. Skow Jr., 79th 'day N.E. APPROVAL OF APRIL 1 5.1 1980 APPEALS CO!,',V ISSION MINUTES s MOTION by. Igir. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the April 15, 1980 Appeals Commission Minutes, as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE; ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL, DECLARED THE Iv;OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. VAR10013, REQUEST, PURSUANT TO CHA-PTER 205 OF THE F IDLEY CITY `.C'HE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, PART OF A PRO- _ POSED I ITTT.nTNr( TP .:H:d9'. T,nnA'n nN ,nT i- ATTnrmnu q 1T R- DIVISIO-N NO . 7bo THE _S k;.LE BEINGS O 1�iAIN STREET N.E. (Request by Rauenhorst Corporation, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, iidnnesota 55431) Y.1OTI C1 by iiIr.' Plemel, seconded by Pals. Gabel, to open the Public eeari g. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON.SCHNABEL, DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED A`1' 7935 P.P.I. lois. Schnabel read the staff reports ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5730 14din Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIREINIENT: Section 2.05.134, 6,. requires buildings to be. 'set back a minimum of 100 feet from a lot line which is adjacent to any other --zoning district. Public purpose served.by this requirement is to avoid congestion in the publicstreetan.d`traffic hazards and other dangers, and to .protect and conserve the character of any adjoining neighborhoods and future neighborhoods in the game vicinity. APPEALS COl'y�iu�ISSION i�[LETING, APRIL 29j--1980- Page_2 B. STATED HARDSHIP: This request is necessary due to the location of the railroad tracks as they relate to this property and our desire to utilize a development concept which will be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The petitioner could meet the 100 foot front yard setback by doing one of several options; 1. Reduce the size of building #2 by 30 feet. 2. Reduce the distance between building #1 and building #2 (Bryant - Franklin warehouse on 79th & Main are 125 feet apart). 3. Obtain a rear yard variance. 4. ` A combination of the above. It shauld be noted that all other industrial'.buildings on Main Street. have met or exceeded the 100 foot setback requirement. We feel that by approving this request, it might set a.precedent for other new and existing buildings along Main Street. We recommend that the Board consider denying this variance request. Mr. Clark referred the Coramission to the Site Plan drawing. T,.r. Clark explained that Rauenhorst plans to build three buildings, and they are requesting a variance for building #2 of this plan. Iv r. Clark..stated that they plan fo'r heavy.. landscaping to screen the building, and the parking lot from view of the residential area. Ms. Schnabel questioned what type of landscaping was planned? Mr. Clark stated that it would include berming, shrubs, and trees. Ms. Foster stated that Rauenhorst plans to build three office - warehouse buildings, of which, the southeasterly building would require the variance. She further stated that the one building would be railroad served, and the other two essentially would be office warehouse facilities. She stated that it was. their intention in developing this concept:, to provide a variety of sorts of office -warehouse facilities, that could be available to different sorts of clients, with different.sorts of needs, within the City of Fridley. She continued, that because of this reason, they plan three different sized buildings, with different depths, She stated that their other concern, in developing --this particular. concept,. was that they were very well aware of the. . . residential area, and very sympathetic., and understanding of the purpose of the zoning of wanting a .100 'foot setback in order to protect the residential area, or any land use , as they are pro- posing.. For this reason, she stated they..have kept the truck docks completely in the interior, in their plan, which would not then be visible to the residential areas, across the street. _APPEALS C01,U41ISSION NiEETING, APRIL 29, 1950 Page 3 d ..She further -stated that they . wante.d ..to have a concept that would 'be truly comp atible�with;the residential area across the street. NTS. Foster stated, that they have -had meetings. with the.City staff, and as a result .have agreed to have whatever ber;ning is possible in that area, as _suggested by staff. She further stated, that essentially, what they would be able to provide would be a three-foot berm, along the most northern area of. the site. She stated that they had submitted a landscaping . plan, .but ; that staff had sum ested that they upgrade the. landscaping plan, so that a the deciduous trees that are -now. shown on the.plan will be all large size trees to provide for maximum screening. She further stated that they are proposing. some goniferous trees so that they would be green and screen. all yesr round. She stated that at the front .of . the building that -they are requesting . the variance for, they have - purpo.sely kept 'the parking area ,close. ;to the building, and away from the street, so as to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Nis. Foster then -showed the Commission members a rendering of the proposed landscaping. She stated that the rendering is showing a close approximation of the size.of the landscape materials that would be planted. She further stated that she felt that -they have worked very hard at coming up with..a plan that would minimize the impact, to compensate for the variance that they are requesting. Pis. Foster stated that it was just last week that they were able to look a t some of the suggestions of the staff . She stated they hayn't done as a. complete a job -of looking_.at. these suggestions as they would -like -to, but that time was of minimum. She stated that as far as reducing the square footage of the building, that they have discussed •iha-to option -t4nd concluded, that. in terns of the concept that they are trying to develop, it would no=t be possible for theme to do that. She. stated -tha.t to reduce' this' building that it essentially would be .the same size as building #3, and that their concept, -was to provide:, diverse areas. T -as. Foster stated that they.also have looked at the possibility of reducing the rear yard, or reducing.the area between the buildings `between building #1 and the other two buildings #2 and #3) , to provide more space. She stated that staff had stated to her,',that.they know of a building where`the distance between was 125 feet; but that their engineers have looked at this suggestion, and that they have told her -that to reduce this area to 125 feet, instead of their proposed 155 feet would create a conflict. She stated that they are not fanilier with the building that staff had stated 'where .this* was ' done, but :,that. they felt in order for the semi'_s to maneuver, this was not possible.! She stated that the engineers stated that there was a,possibility of reducing this area by 5 feet.at the most, but that was not desirable either. P.Zs. Foster stated that they have also looked at the rearr yard suggestion. but there -again 16 feet is absolutely required from the property line to the extension of the railroad'tracks: r APPEALS COiUISSION MEETING APRIL 29, 1980 Page4 She further stated that at present they possibly could pick up a maximum of five feet in -this area. She stated that it is their strong preference that at this point,. that given the sorts of landscaping, berming, and location of the parking areas, that they really feel, that the intent of the ordinance will be still met by the granting of this variance. She stated that with this site plan -they felt thet they have ' come up with the most compatible plan: for the residential area. Ms. Gabel questioned if they had considered a on traffic flow into the dock area: that might reduce --the need for the 155 feet between the buildings? P.s-. Foster stated that the need would still be there for the radius for the trucks to maneuver in an out of'the docks. Mr. Barna questioned how many dock were in the southeasterly building (Building #2), for which they were asking the varisnce for? Nis. Foster stated that there is a possibility of eight docks, for that building•,,but that it was improbable that all eight docks, would be in use at any one particular time. Mr. Plemel questioned why they need the 16 feet from the property line? Ms. Foster stated that what had happened was that after the initial plans, Burlington Northern stated that they needed to retain fifty feet of the property for themselves, which then pushed R auenhorst's plans closer to the street. Pair. Plemel questioned if this site is being built for resale? Ivis. Foster stated that it was planned to -be leased, unless in the future it could be - sold as a package, but that they were not separating the lotsifor resale purposes. PIs. Gabel questioned what was the total number of docks? ills. Foster stated that there was a total of 28 do ks with 14 on Building #1,_8 on Building' #2.,.'and 6 -oil Building* 3." LIs. Gabel stated that realistically then.they are looking at a lot of truck traffic. 11 iris. Foster stated that they have the provision for it, but tb.,t. it may be that they will have•one large user, or several small users, and that they wanted to be flexible so that they could accommodate either type of user. Ms. Gabel questioned. the hardship in this variance. Vis. Foster stated that it was an economic hardship. . APPEALS CO L"ISSION fc;EETING, APRIL 29, 1950 Palle 5 y T;s.. Gabel stated. that she believed that -there was between 50 to 80 acres of undeveloped land in the area. ' Mr. Clark stated that between 694 and 61st street, it was about 20jo developed. :. Ifis. Foster stated that`. she could... understand -the ,Commission's reluctance.in setting a precedent by granting this -variance,. but she further ' sta.ted that in a lot- of ways, with the plan that they have submitted, even though they are asking for a. va.rience, they .are' probably going to get, a much better development, in terns of berming and landscaping, because they -do have to come before the Commission for approval,. than. if they. just carne in with no variances at a.11, and no ,approval to get. Us: Gabel stated that -she felt that there was. another consideration in terms of the.residential area. She further stated.that the neighborhood across the street has a neighborhood committee, and that she had chaired ,that Coffniittee. She stated that Comniittee had spent several years in working out the problems that.were numerous in that residential area.. She stated that she felt that the neighborhood has.now built itself back up in character,- and integrity,. which she stated was what they wanted to preserve. She stated that she was concerned in that putting this building closer to the street, with so.many more areas to still be developed, that once it is done, they will have -to deal with -.everyne : else :that.-c:oiiies., iii :fear _ty4r; ar�ce. .3 stat e CL t1.L 4 she also is -concerned -with the amount of truck traffic. :res. Gabel. then .questioned if iils,- Foster knew how ' the truck..traffic would flow, as 'phis: has been a big proble:-_. in that.. area? Ms. Foster stated that it would be difficult. .to say, as they were.dealing-with speculative buildings, and they did not know who would be leasing them, but that they had purchased the land because of its proximity to: 694 Interstate, and therefore they would assume that the truck traffic would flow through 57th Avenue and not through.the residential neighborhood Ms. Gabel stated that it is possible to tend to establish a traffic pattern just by the way the entrance::and exits are set. Ns. Schnabel. questioned the. two. entrances at the North and South ends of the buildings, if they were wide enough to allow two-way traffic? Mr. Clark stated that yes they would be, as they are 30 feet wide. Ms.. Schnabel questioned - the.area between building #2.and.-building J3, if that was to be used as a driveway? L -Is. Foster stated that no it eras not, and that the sketch was deceiving.in the fact that this area tends to slope back toward the rear, and that this area .is to be landscaped, .and ber.ned. APRIL 29. `19$0 Page__6 APPEALS CO';�1f�:ISSION i1.E1;TING, She further stated that the docks in the back would be downset, somewhat lower than the buildings. leis. Schnabel stated that she was somewhat curious about the water retention, and the runoff. P.Zr. Clark stated that the site does tend to Plope somewhat from North.to South, and that they have provided for a holding pond on the South end of the site. Ms. Foster stated that it is their preference not to hold water on the roofs of the buildings if possible. ,Is. Schnabel questioned what they would do, if the Comimission denied this variance request totally? I41s. Foster stated that they would then have to try to work the plans onto the property, if they were to pursue the purchase of the site, and the development of the project. She further stated that she felt that what night happen, would be if possible they might have to come back with a backyard variance, which she stated she. did not know if that was a possibility. She stated that given the problem of Burlington -Northern retaining the 50 feet, that she did not know if it was possible to develop.the site, without some sort of variance being granted. She stated that she felt that if they would not be able to receive any sort of variances, the project itself might be in jeopardy. MI s. Schnabel stated that if anyone in the audience wanted to make their remarks they could do so now: Joyce Holmberg, 5765 :,Iain Street N.E. , stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed site. She further stated that they now have a lot of truck traffic, a lot of little children, a lot of fast vehicles, and because of the truck traffic she feels it should be set back the required 100 feet. She stated that so.aeti::les it is difficult to get in and out of the driveway. She stated that it is a mess already, and that this would only create a worse _cess. She stated that right nowi:Iain Street is a - very busy street. Ms. Schnabel stated that she was sympathetic to the proble_�i of the truck traffic, which is a problem. She further stated that because this was zoned commercial that they would proba.bly.always have to contend with the trucks whether this particular building was built, 'or 'some other building at a later date. ;FIs. Holmberg stated that she felt that if the other co:�mercial users were set back the 100 feet that this site should do likewise. Mr. Alfred Nelson stated that he is with Burlington -Northern, and that the restriction that they placed on 2auenhorst, on the westerly boundary was and is for a very important reason, being that of operating the right-of-way property,.whi•ch he stated is controlled APPEALS COHIIISSION idEETING, APRIL 29, 1980_ Page 7 k by their operating superintendents whoh-as restricted them in the - land portion of .the ra.ilroa.d: for any further consideration i% of that property for further expansion by Rauenhorst. He further stated that there is another passing track that the superintendent felt was — necessary, and that what that would do would be to move the service truck; which i.s necessary to -have the spur coning in to na.uenhorst actually co ,►ing right up to the property lime. He stated that so when they.speak of the 16 .feet, ;that this is e.ctually-_necessary-but-that he wasn't sure of the- actual figures, but that there are very definite clearance points -which are required. He stated that the only point, i.s that they have been given,,the . word froui . their operating people, that they are in need .of that property to the West, which does severely restrict. Rauenhorst,-in their•developing program. pis. Gabel questioned if there was a possibility that they could. .put their spur in that 50 feet? Mr. Nelson.stated that.no there was not a possibility.because. all the land is being taken up by, or planned for service, or passing tracks, which would go all the way up to No--rthtown. He stated .that they have had their -people look at .this _quite. closely. Yls. Schnabel stated that they have a letter in reference to thisin their info=,o,.tio*n.­ - 3r. Nielson ,stated.that yes.that letter referred to the 50 feet that they no,� requ .rad, and that 1t was a. 1a.st -_rd ?t.e curve that was thrown to Rauenhorst. sir. John Keppler, 100 58th Avenue N.E. questioned how -deep the holding pond would be? +s. Foster stated that at this time they have not deter.wined what capa.city..o.f water this. - holding pond,would ,have to hold. - She -further stated that they.are having.a drainage study.done at this ti-ae , * to find out how large and at what depth the pond would.have to be.:She stated that they do not have the results of that test as of yet. lois. Schnabel, and %1r. Clark then explained the. reason, and various .iethods for the runoff. Us$ Gabel stated that this looks like it could be an attractive nuisance, to children, with its close proximity.to the street. She questioned if there was a way to -build that further back? Ms. Foster stated that this was only a conceptial drawing, and they would try to keep it as. far back as possible, but until. the study could.detercrzine the needed depth and width-$ it was.. difficult to deterrine what size holding.pond would be needed. Mr. Keppler stated that.it was his concern that this could, be a nuisance th=at :night need to be fenced. IIe also questioned if this would create a marsh like state with clot of bugs. ills. Schnabel stated that ideally it would only have water in it after a rainfall. APPEALS C& (MISSION CTEETING. APRIL .29, 1980 �P e { :Pis. Schnabel stated that these questions and concerns were valid, and that at sorae point she would like to see some more specifics on the water retention plan. T+Is. Gabel questioned the audience how they feel about the variance? Mr. Keppler stated that he would like it -set back the 100 feet. Ms. Foster stated that their preference, if this variance was not acceptable, would be to have it tabled, so that they could work on various other ways of having it being acceptable. She further stated that what she would like to have would be some direction on what would be acceptable, if this plan was not Ms. Schnable stated that she would like to know the feelings - of the Co:amission, on what their inclinations were. Mr. Barna stated that he felt tha.t he. would like to see them come back with sore different figures, and try to :rove the front of the building back as far as possible. Ms. Gabel stated that after working with that neighborhood, that she to,o would like to see what different ideas they could bring back to the Comiiission. She further stated that because this was the first one in that area to be built, that she couldn't vote to grant this variance, but would be more comfortable granting a rear yard variance. Mir. Plemel stated that there seeiaed to be quite a few other options open, and therefore, he would want to retain the 100 foot setback. i�Zs. Schnable stated that it appeared that they would all be :aore comfortable if Rauenhorst, could come up with some other alternatives. Preferably would be not to have any front yard variance, and they would be more acceptable to a rear yard variance. iIr. Clark stated that he would like. to point out with a rear yard variance, that the Fire Dept. might want to have a fire lane put in there. 11Zs. Schnabel stated that they may want a fire hydrant there. MOTION by Lis. Gabel, seconded by ,Ir. Barna to table variance request pursuant to chapter 205•0f the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 100 feet in a heavy industrial area, to 70 feet, to allow the construction of an industrial building, part of a proposed 3 building complex, located on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No -78, the sale being 5730idain Street N. -E. (Request by Rauenhorst Corporation, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, l�.inneapolis, ..iinnesota 55431) until the ..:ay 27th, 1980 Appeals Commission �deeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE :i0TI0N PASSED UNANI:OUSLY. rP �`,JISSION :� EET� ING . AP�RIL_?9 , 1,280 . Pane :c ; T A' SEALS Co;,.� _,... r 2. VARTANCF. ;RE2UFST PUR?SUANT TO CH©FTE�� 205 .4 '1F THE F_t7IrD-LTErYt CITY Ur fi I� .. iVUr' 7ID& CODE,. TO.:EDUCE 11 iE SIDL,._.�..�c�_ .... ^- "-, ,gyp RMI 10 LLT, .To FEr'r,f �( v[� �l �T �..: IY OF A 14 J �' 1. 0 0 T i.V N T '. ' ".• •�v'*' i a r k r'NSTRU CT E7 ;'JITI O.OT IDE YA D ETB' L, H,CUS,. Lgy CO LOQAT., OrAND-B.B OCK -SPRIN B R .. TI (Reque0t.. by Joseph Skow,• s '311 79th.'May., fit.E.., Fridley, .Yin: 5A32, <: Chairperson Schnabel then read the staff report �. _ . AD14INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 371 - 79th tray N. E. , A.a PJMtIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REnUIRMIMIT: Section 205.053, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for living area.° Public :purpose -served by this requirements is to maintain a minimum of t 20 -feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet ,between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure'to conflagration of fire. it is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. 9. ` STATEDHARDSHIP: ilia• existing house was built three feet from the property line,.an4 ire p "have to continue at this line to have an ddii�ion. jute need the additional space as there is only -one bedroom now and no utility room. 19 -.' C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE: If the Commission approves this request, the west wall of the addition w. can not have any openings and must be constructed for one,hour fire resistance. i MOTION by Mr..Plemel, seconded by. Ty r. Barna, to open the Public . Hearing, F UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING.AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL, DECLARED < THE PUBLIC ,1EETING OPENED AT 8155 P;%i.. t Mt. Al Skow, 'the petitioners father,'was present and came forward to. explain the, plans. He stated. that he would be doing the work, He 'then ex�la.ine.d 'that there was an add on bedroom, and that in the back they would be putting on this addition. He stated � that the househasa crawl space. He staged that -with - the one..: bedroom they needed more room. itis. Schnabel questioned how far the -•neighbors . house was from thi-s. l r{ house? Room 1018 176 r•.ust rifth Street INDUSTRIAL DEVI:LOF'MENT AND St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (612) 298.2121 Mr. William C. Tobin March 20, 1980 Vice President Real Estate Division Rauenho-rst Corporation 2200 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 Dear Mr. Tobin: At the request of Mr. Wangard of-your'office, we.have- revised Exhibit "A" to the .Offer to Purchase Agreement covering the sale of Burlington Northern land at Fridley to Rauenhorst. ` The depth of the property is now 835 feet rather than 890 feet as originally proposed, making the total sale area approximately 12.17%acres. This is a.reduction .of 55 feet along the south line of the property. Please substitute the now exhibit- in the Offer to Purchase Agreement dated February 21, 1980 and change Paragraph. 2, page one to show a purchase price of and a depnsit.of Please also co -r ect Paragraph 13, page three to shot,* 530',225 square feet. We•will need to receive•the executed Offer by March 25 in order to meet our deadline for securing final authority from our.Board of Directors. All.Regional approvals have been received so you may Nish. to put the wheels in motion. to secure the necessary permits and begin the soil tests on the property. This is with the understanding, however, that such work is at your own.expense and -risk until after you.receive an executed copy of the Offer to Purchase Agreement. Sincerely, . E..Bostick Manager - Property Sales. Enc. File:. BN 5823 -'Fridley '�.O,tt•�9.�',!!�4T*?'1T:�Gm1P!'..,^��7R1�'CSS`i�sRshat';��n•R�w�ae'a:�.+NTiry+;tMR+igT. . ,�,••s�?�'i'y^.'tt?""C�F:.'7.�7}.",O .....vvL.�+.:��'..i�:Lca:�=�--L-�`.�ra14'.t:.kli A'4.•..HiOA.s:Dc•. Jt wA.•:Stutiw:k+.i++�l/uliS+.13N+1N.iou'..3.ti a�l+iutir.d'`er.S.ati1.,:.LLt4w�+:uri.�-ar�sa::?..szaw��ti�S� ��t.t •:'�-: ;-.•t.•�y'�,p�jk�u.•••. • r • 4Z<�2I W ' 1 �h.rJ� •d.-�i /J CY +1.1� /./l°3� r`I/�� Irecl ,�� yAI• r -. . •� ♦ SLY• s '� �, t7 a. .. •err.., CMCt�rG • It'1 rTr� l'/rCJf %�/i/� %� G:/ �.Cf/"'r�;�,;'/'�►/J/'CJ."..r ''%•..•ri [ .%L./�Lh'�/L`'y �-P � �S. %iJi,3� t /,i�i:� fC � ��J%/rJji /�1'•i�. ;� �r/"�':�,/.i t'/ri��i+i %t�'�'' ..i: Cilrfi %� �,.t . t:/%/ij� .1 ir�f f C j % j�/t (•�•/r��` /;%rl.� [� Ti /h IA14e