The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR93-09 4 • • CITY OF FRIDLEY p 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY,MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORrMI/ATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached Address: Property Identification Number (PIN) Legal description: _� � �3 Lot Block Tract/Addition �(z1 �(... f?JZ Current zoning: P' o9 Square footage/acreage Reason for variance and hardship: ©�' . S ( 0 5- — 7 � �O( Section of City Code: Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No 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 ZZ&(� 'j3jq-�AeTL ADDRESS S2 DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATU DATE PETITIONER INF RMATI NAME cJ ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATURE DATE Fee: $100.00 HH~~~~~~~~~~~$60.00,�~for residential properties Permit VAR# 3--Q`7 Receipt# Application received by: Scheduled Appeals Commission date: Scheduled City Council date: 2JJ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Applicants for vacations must submit the legal description of the B. Site Plan: parcel (easement, street, etc.) to be vacated. 1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and Complete site proposed structures with distance from boundaries, p plans, signed by a registered architect, civil distance between structures, building dimensions and engineer, landscape architect, or other design professional, to floor elevations include the following: 2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural A. General: features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc.) as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation and storm 1. Name and address of project water retention ponds. Calculations for storm water 2. Legal description (certificate of survey may be required) detention/retention areas. 3. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress 3. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, showing widths of property lines, turning radii abutting engineer, and owner of record rights-of-way with indicated center line, paving width, existing and proposed median cuts, and intersections of • 4. Date proposed, north arrow, scale, number of sheets, name streets and driveways of drawer 4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and 5. Description of intended use of site, buildings, and dimensions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking lot structures including type of occupancy and estimated aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes, occupancy load emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, direction of 6. Existing zoning and land use traffic flow, and traffic-control devices 7. Tabulation box indicating: 5. Landscaping Plan (i) Size of parcel in sq. ft. 6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash (ii) Gross floor area of buildings enclosures (iii) Percent of site covered by building 7. Location and screening detail of rooftop equipment (iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface 8. Building elevations from all directions 9. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing (v) Percent of site covered by green area water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance of (vi) Projected number of employees hydrant to proposed building (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 i SUBJECT P City of Fridley 217 4 8 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT � RE • _____ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r I � PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. O� C)TY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV JDATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY �""�� ,•� Al JR7 11-1drm910-F15 2/25/93 JOB ADDRES 6420 Starlite Circle NE T LEGAL LOT R9. PM=T OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 3A 1 Doty/Wellner Addition SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Bauer Construction Co. 1080 W Co Rd E, Shoreview 55126 483-0518 3231 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Same j 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. �J 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK C�7 NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Construct a 441 x 24' 0 lot line Dwelling; a 24' x 22' Garage; and a 101 x 10' Dec 9 CHANGEOFUSEFROM TO STIPULATIONSSee notations on plan. Provide sod in the front and side yards. Provide City with. copy of verifying survey before capping. Provide a hard surface .driveway. Paid Park Fee of $406.25. WAKING WATER LOCATION; 9.5' W of Hyd. & 53.5' SW of M.H. Before digging call for SEWER LOCATION; 2' N of Water all utility locations C LAW 454-0002 LAW A l THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE REQUIRED BY ACCURACY OF UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS. THIS DATA IS FOR INFORIM::AT"y N PURPOSES ONLY, SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR AND PERSONS USING THIS IiIIF OR MATION SHOULD WIRING, i-��AT��;G, �'LUP,��?ii�G AND SIGINS. VERIFY IT ON THE SITE. TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SQ.FT. CU.FT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION 1 1 STALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX Fire SC AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED $92,630 $46. 32 $92.63 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PLAN CHECK FEE TOTALFEE License SC $5.00 $1,501.95 + Park Fe SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE, WHEft PR RLY V LI TED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT S.GNATURE OF OWNER,IF OWNER BUILDER, (DATE, BLDG IN f)A7E 2M • „�,�.... ,-,:�� i AOL SUBJECT IT NO. Cit f Fi City ore y 21751 r AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT RECEIPT NO. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. i r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. g CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY 612-571-3450 910-F15 2/25/93 JOB ADDRESS 6430 Starlite Circle NE 1 LEGAL R ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 4A 1 Doty/Wellner Addition SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Bauer Construction Co. 1080 W Co Rd E, Shoreview MN 55126 483-0518 3231 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Same 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO, 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK X Construct a 24' x 43.5' 0 lot line dwelling; a 22' x 24' Garage; and a 10' x 10' Deck 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS See notations on plan. Provide a verifying survey before capping. Provid sod in the front and side yards. Provide a hard surface driveway. Paid $406.25 Park Fee. SEWER LOCATION: 2E S of Water WATER LOCATION: 77.5' W of Hyd. & 291 W of M.H. OF FF?!DLEY GOES NO GUARANTEE THE ..;� :, � ACCO IACY OF tJ i�L.? i 1 lt�a I AND Ei EVATIONS. 5� .. n PURP Before Nving call for THIS DATA IS FGhI 'Iri �,'., ,f�iNIF01�MATiONESHOUL.D all utility locations AND PERSONS USING THIS 454.0002 VERIFY IT ON THE SITE. REQUIRED B_Y_ SEPARATE PERMITS RET-11RED FOR WIRING, HEATING, PLUMBiNG AND SIGNS. TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SO.FT, CU.FT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION 1 STALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED Fire SC WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT $91,532 $45.77 $91.53 DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. $603.50 $750.00 PLAN CHECK FEE TOTAL FEE License SC $5.00 $1,495.80 + Park Fe SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IDATEI HE R RL V ID TED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT _ 2-25 93 SIGNATURE OF OWNER OF OWNER BUILDER, (DATE, BLDG INS- nArE 2Q REZONING REQUEST HISTORY 68' COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1982 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22 1982: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all votingiaye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Councilman Barnette stated this week Fridley has several visitors, students and adults, from our Sister City, Fourmies, France, in and around the City. He asked everyone who may come in contact with them to please extend their greetings. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQEUST, ZOA #82-01 TO REZONE FROM 1 M-1 TO R-2, PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY, W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER (CONTINUED FROM 3122Z321.- Mayor /22/82):Mayor Nee stated this public hearing was continued from last Council meeting in order to give staff and Councilman Hamernik time to meet with the petitioners and neighborhood residents. He reopened the public hearing at 7:45 p. m. Councilman Hamernik stated he met with the petitioners and the residents of the area last Thursday and discussed a number of issues that were of concern. He stated they did get a tentative agreement on a proposal that would allow for the development of the property with three R-1 lots and five R-2 lots, with the understanding that the R-2 lots would be developed with zero lot lines. He stated, at this meeting, they didn't have an actual layout of the plan, but talked about the concept. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there were a number of concerns from the residents and during the discussion they were considered and minimized. He stated the cul-de-sac is proposed to be shifted more to the East and the R-1 lot, just North of the existing single family homes, has been more oriented to the cul-de-sac. He further stated the proposed double bungalow was quite a bit closer to the railroad tracks, in the original proposal, and that has been moved to the East for a better alignment. Mr. Qureshi stated the original proposal was to have only one single family home and seven double bungalows. The proposal discussed at the meeting would be to have three single family homes and five double bungalows, with the understanding that the double bungalows would be developed as such that each side could be individually owned. Mr. Qureshi stated to allow that type of use, the Council would have to adopt a change in the zoning, and a variance to the setbacks would be required. Mr. Qureshi stated the residents wanted to make sure that the garages on the double bungalows were attached or tuck-under, and a minimum square footage required for the double bungalows. He suggested these requirements be convenants on the plat, when it is approved, so it guarantees that the present owners or any future owners meet those standards. 67 THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1982 The Fridley City Council Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p. m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Hamernik, Mayor Nee, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: None PROPOSED PROCLAMATION - DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 18 - 25 AS DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE OF THE HOLOCAUST: Mayor Nee stated he would issue a proclamation, and asked staff to - prepare it, designating the week of April 18 through 25 as Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust. PROCLAMATION - BUILDING SAFETY WEEK, APRIL 12 - 16: A proclamation was also submitted for Mayor Nee'6 signature designating the week of April 12 through 16 as Building Safety Week. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION: Mayor Nee stated a lot of citizens put in time and service to the Community by serving on various citizen committees. He stated the Council is very grateful to those persons who have extended themselves to serve the City and, therefore, wished to present them with these certificates of appreciation. i The following persons received certificates of appreciation, and the Council extended their thanks to them: Richard Harris, Planning Commission Barbara Hughes, Parks and Recreation Commission Donald Wall , Energy Commission Edward Hamernik, Police Commission Giles McConville, Energy Commission D6nald Hippen, Appeals Commission Larry Chevalier, Cable Television Commission Mayor Nee stated Dick Harris has probably put in ten or more years in a very difficult job and had a substantial effective on how the community developed as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mayor Nee stated Don Wall has served the community as a member of the Energy Commission. The Mayor stated Barbara Hughes has been involved in a number of City commissions and instrumental in the development of the first cable television ordinance. She most recently has been a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Mayor Nee stated Ed Hamernik was concerned with Police needs years ago and offered to serve as a member of the Police Commission. Since Don Hippen, Giles McConville, and Larry Chevalier were not present at this meeting, it was requested their certificates be forwarded to them. 69. COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Qureshi stated if the Council wishes to consider a rezoning, he would suggest the rezoning and platting all be accomplished at the same time. Councilman Hamernik stated they tried to save as many of the existing trees as possible in this development, and felt this proposal does accomplish this end. Mr. Qureshi stated the residents were advised this proposal would be submitted as a whole package and, unless all the conditions are complied with, it would not be recommended for approval. He stated if there were to be any changes, the residents would be advised. Mr. Wellner, the petitioner, stated he concurs with the new proposal for development of this parcel. Mr. Mike Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd., stated he wished to thank the City Manager, Mr. Qureshi, for his work in coming up with some real alternatives. Also, he thanked Councilman Hamernik for co-chairing the meeting, and stated he couldn't speak for everyone here, but felt this proposal was a vast improvement. He stated the residents' fear was the parcel would be rezoned to R-2 and they wouldn't have any control over the development, but with the new proposal, he is willing to give his own approval. Mayor Nee felt the issue the Council will now have to consider is the matter of zero lot lines and asked if anyone in the audience"had any problems with this proposal. There was no response from the audience. Councilman Hamernik thanked the residents for their patience and for coming out and meeting once again, and stated he felt it was a fruitful meeting. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all votingaye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 7:55 p. m. OLD BUSINESS• 2 CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS #182-03 TO COMBINE INTO THREE LOTS 110 AND 120 - 64 1/2 AVENUE AND 6430 EAST RIVER ROAD LATTER WILL NEED ADDRESS CHANGE IF SPLIT), DONNA MILLER TABLED 3/22/82): Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the staff has reviewed the lot split requested, and the surrounding area and found a need for the City to provide access to the lots in the-rear and.one of the lots would not meet the minimum frontage requirement, however, it would meet the square footage requirement. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the plan submitted by the petitioner for this lot split was in the Council's agenda book. He stated this plan did not provide for access to the interior lots and creates one substandard lot. Mr. Flora stated the plan suggested by staff would shift the line ten feet to the West and reduce the side yard. Mrs. Miller, the petitioner, stated she originally wanted to have two large lots with zero lot lines and was advised this probably wouldn't be approved as the property is now R-1 and it would require a rezoning. 70 � • COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1982 PAGE 4 She stated, after talking to the surveyor, in order to have access to her garage and access off 64 1/2, she would need more room. She stated she understands there is a requirement for a 75 foot frontage, but exceptions have been approved. She felt that, in the future, if the easement becomes necessary, then it could be considered, however, the possibility of developing that land now isn't there. Mrs. Miller also pointed out there is park property there and wondered if this couldn't be used for easement purposes. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the City usually obtains the easements when property is platted. Mrs. Miller stated, by splitting the property as she has proposed, it eliminates driveways on East River Road because entrances would be on 64 1/2.Way. Mayor Nee asked Mrs. Miller how moving the lines would affect her. Mrs. Miller stated if the lines were shifted, it would encroach on the front of her home and she wouldn't have enough room to enter her garage. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated when a lot split is brought before the Council , it usually has the easements shown on it. Mr. Qureshi stated the proper way to handle this would really be through a plat because the lot split does not follow any straight lines, as the ordinance normally requires. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the property isn't in a form this evening where it could be split, and more accurate drawings should be provided. Mr. Qureshi stated it should be determined if the Council wants to split the property or have it platted. He stated platting would require addi- tional expense for the petitioner, however, all the easements and other necessary right-of-ways would be shown. If Council wishes to allow a I lot split, then staff will bring a map that has all the stipulations I shown on it. Mrs. Miller stated a new drawing was prepared and the north/south lines were changed and the front footage of the lots as shown. These front footages are 138 feet, 66 feet, and the easterly lot is 64 feet. Mayor Nee stated he felt it would be better for Mrs. Miller to have the split for only one additional lot, instead of two. Mrs. Miller felt she should give this further consideration and discussion before making a decision. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the Council needed a more definite map before any action could be taken. He stated even if they were to agree on something, it would be hard to describe it. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, suggested perhaps the Planning Department should look at zero lot lines for this particular parcel. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to continue this request until the next meeting on April 19, 1982. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 25-1982 TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITATION OF PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF A CABLE COh1MUNIC_ATIONS SYSTEM FROM NORTHERN CABLEVISION, INC. STABLED 3/2282 Mayor Nee stated there was discussion of this resolution at the Council's Conference Meeting and the question was well explored. CIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAGE 6 MOTION by Counc n Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by , Councilman Fitzpatri Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion:carri.* unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:45 p. m. Councilman Schneider felt because of t mber of people present this evening, perhaps the Council should take so ormal action or poll the Council on their feelings on this issue. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he would prefer the Cou . not take action this evening so they may review the record, and for the to be placed on the Council 's agenda for the April 5 meeting. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #82-01 TO REZONE FROM M-1 TO R-2 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET, EAST OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY, W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:45 p, m. RECESS: A recess was called by Mayor Nee at 9:45 p. m. RECONVENED: Mayor Nee reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p. m. All Council h+embers were present. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for rezoning of property from M-1 to R-2, with a small portion zoned R-1, located east of the Burlington Northern tracks and south of Mississippi Street. i Mr. Flora stated at the public hearing before the Planning Commission a I lot of objections were raised by neighboring residents regarding the proposed development. Some of the concerns were the sewer capacity, additional traffic, and the impact on property values in the area. Mr. Flora stated the City has not had any sewer problems in this area since 1977 and felt there is capacity there to handle this development. He further stated that the Assessor has indicated that a rezoning to R-2, instead of the M-1, would enhance property values, and it was felt there would be less traffic for R-2, rather than the M-1 zoning. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this rezoning request because of the existing density and traffic problems in this area. Mr. Doty, the applicant, stated what they are proposing is a down zoning from M-1, light industrial , to R-2. He stated it is their contention that the R-2 is preferable to M-l.because the area is adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and R-2 zoning would be more compatible. Mr. Doty stated, in checking the sewer problem, it was determined there is capacity there and regarding the traffic, whenever you develop property it does increase the traffic. He felt, however, if the property is developed as M-1, there would be more traffic than if it is developed as R-2. j • 57 CO CIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAGE 5 Mr. Ma in felt the Council should have accurate and complete data before king such an important decision as a moratorium on condominium conversio s. Councilman hneider pointed out to Mr. Martin that the Council does have specifi data for the City of Fridley. Ms. Sue Felkey, 1601 Innsbruck Drive, N.E., asked what kind of an 4 income is consid red low to moderate and what kind of an income is needed to purchas a condomonium. She felt they were forgetting about the single person. Mr. Solomonson stated the cost would depend on how large a unit was purchased and to what tent the owner participated in the financing. Mr. Manary felt the very inimum price would be $40,000 and felt the monthly costs would be $70 plus. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, It six months should be the shortest period of time to expect ge any substantial group together and have them meet and conside thi complex issue, with a report back to the Council. He stated, •f C ncil is interested in picking up on some of the suggestions, h wou d recommend that a minimum would be an ordinance adoptedfora ix m th period, with the understand- ing that when a report is recei d a depending on the results of the study, the period would laps or i it seems there is a serious problem and the City would benefit on t e continuation of the Moratorium, another ordinance be a ted for a longer period of time. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he didn see the difference between an 18 month moratorium that could be re eale or a six month one that could be extended. v Mr. Robert Gorrell , 1601 Innsbruck Drive, tate he felt the Council has the right to tell the owners what to do or the best interests of the City. He stated the rents they are pa ing in Fridley are average, however, there is a shortage of renta units in Fridley. Mr. Gorrell stated he would like the opportunity to serve on a committee to review the affects of condomonium co ersions, as no one has told them what will happen. Mr. Mike Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd., stated he coul sympathize with persons who are not in a position to own their ow home. He stated, at the same time, the way things are today the o ly way they might be able to own real estate is through condominium nversions. Mr. Larson stated he would like to recommend a one year mor torium and have the planning staff make a detailed study so the Cou cil has all the facts in order to make a decision on condominium conv sions. Mrs. Laura Krois, 1601 Innsbruck Drive, asked about poverty leve and handicapped housing. Mr. Boardman stated he knows of only one 25 unit building being constructed in Coon Rapids. Mrs. Krois stated they ad over 40 applicants for this building. Mrs. Paulette Reid, 101 Sylvan Lane, stated she was in support of the moratorium. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this moratorium on condominium conversions. 59 COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Doty stated there would be more than adequate off-street parking provided and there is no plan for any on-street parking. A lady in the audience asked if these double bungalows they are proposing would be owner-occupied or rented. Mr. Doty felt it would be a combina- tion of both as he had inquires from several persons in the Sylvan Hills area. He explained the best financing available today is for owner-occupied double bungalows so, dealing with reality, the properties will probably be owner-occupied. Mayor Nee asked if they could build these units as condominiums. Mr. Doty stated he has talked to staff about a zero lot line, and if this can be done, he would be in favor of it. He stated if they construct condominiums, it would allow them to place two individual mortgages on each property. Mr. Doty stated at the time he approached the City staff on this, there wasn't a condominium ordinance in the City. Mayor Nee felt the persons present should have an opportunity to review the floor plans submitted for the proposed double bungalows, therefore., a recess was called. RECESS: Mayor Nee called a recess at 10:15 p. m. RECONVENED: Alayor.Nee reconvened the metting at 10:30 p. m. All Council members were present. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the question before the Council is whether to rezone the property from industrial to R-2 to permit double bungalows. He stated on any rezoning, the Council has broad discretion on whether or not to approve the rezoning and they have to take into consideration the location of the property, the uses that are adjacent to it, the character of the neighborhood, etc. He stated the question before the Council is if it makes more sense to develop this property as industrial or residential. He stated there is broad discretion, however, the limiting factor is that the City has to provide the owner the right to make some reasonable development of the property. Mr. Herrick stated one of the questions asked of him was if the City could prevent the owner from developing the property, as it is now zoned, which is M-1, because of the road which leads into the property. He stated the City has an obligation to provide suitable access to a person's property so he can make use of it. Councilman Hamernik stated if the property is developed as M-1 and it is determined the street has to be up-graded, who would be responsible for the cost of the street improvement. Mr. Herrick stated the general policy, as far as installation of streets, is they have been constructed and assessed against those properties that benefit from the improvement. He stated the issue here would be that the City would have to make a determination whether the improvement would be paid out of general revenues or by special assessment. He stated, if it is by special assessment, the Council would have to determine what prop- erties benefit from the improvement. He pointed out the property and the City is required to put in some type of access. He stated the situation here is the property is zoned industrial , with really only a residential street going to it, in terms of the weight requirements. Mr. Herrick stated, the City, in turn, may argue that this owner is the only one that is benefitting, and the outcome may have to be determined in. court. 60 _ - - COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAGE 8 Mr. Mike Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd., stated that once this property is rezoned, you could have several different contractors working on this development and there are no assurances the buildings proposed this evening would be constructed. Mr. Larson pointed out that the homes on Starlite Blvd. virtually follow certain setbacks and two of the proposed structures will be in the backyards of the hones on Starlite where their lanscaping begins. Mr. Larson stated he hasn't seen any definite plans from the applicant, Mr. Doty. He stated most of this area is single family homes and residents are concerned about the best possible zoning on this parcel and will not settle for anything that will hurt their property values. Mr. Larson stated Mr. Boardman had stated single family homes would be desirable for this area and he agrees. He stated he would like a recommendation from the Council as to how to proceed, as he doesn't want to see the R-2 zoning approved. A gentleman living on Mercury Drive stated his main concern is that whatever the zoning is for the parcel, it should be one that creates the least amount of impact on the City and the best for the residents who live in this area. Mr. Frank Liebl , 222 Mercury Drive, stated he wanted to be sure there isn't a problem created with the sanitary sewer. He felt by adding 14 units, this would create some drainage problems. He stated he would like to see a plat to know exactly what would be constructed and would like to see an R-1 development, as he wanted to keep Sylvan Hills striCLly residential. Mr. Herrick stated the City has the authority to have this as R-1 zoning, but didn't know of any land that has been rezoned by the Council , without petitionfron the owner. Mr. Gary Wellner, the applicant for the rezoning, stated it seems to him the City has the responsibility to provide for them to develop this property and a sewer system to handle the drainage, the same if they were developing it as M-1. He pointed out again they are actually requesting a down zoning of this property. He stated, in discussion of the item before this on the agenda, it seems there was a need for housing in the City, and there is now a proposal before the Council for additional housing. He stated if there is a way to get this plat tied into the rezoning, he would be in favor of it. Mr. Doty stated when the proposed plat was submitted, he was told you can't tie this in with the rezoning. Mr. Doty stated he felt this area was not real desirable for single family homes because of the adjacent industrial use and the apartment buildings and a lesser quality home may have to be built, such as those with the FHA 235 program. Mr. Dennis Johnson, Starlite Blvd., stated he was concerned about the traffic on his street which is very heavy. He felt the owners of the property should have found out what the residents wanted on this parcel before they purchased the property. Mrs. Paulette Reid, 101 Sylvan Lane, stated she wanted to maintain the zoning which is there now. I - - 61 COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAIGE 9 Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated it has been indicated by the City Attorney that there is some obligation on the Council 's part to provide access so owners can develop their property as it is zoned, which is currently M-i. Mr. Qureshi stated, when this matter was before the Planning Commission, he understood Mr. Doty was going to approach the neighborhood regarding . a proposal that was reasonably acceptable. He felt Mr. Doty should meet with the neighborhood residents and try to come up with a proposal that is acceptable. Mr. Qureshi stated, if the neighborhood feels they want to allow double bungalows, with certain restrictions,: the Council has the tools to assure they will be developed as agreed upon. He felt the residents of the area and the owners should be given a chance to work out this problem. Councilman Hamernik stated he wanted the people to understand his position, and in other rezoning cases, he has taken the position he feels it is necessary to have neighborhood agreement on a rezoning question. Councilman Hamernik stated, based on that position, his recommendation to Council, at this point., would be not to approve the rezoning, but he does have some reservations. He stated if the Council denies the rezoning, he is not sure there would be total agreement of what could go on the property under r the current zoning of M-1. He stated the developer could decide to put in I a light industrial building and the City would have no recoul-se. He felt there may be ways to come up with an agreement that would allow this property to develop in a way that is satisfactory with most of the residents in the area. Councilman Hamernik suggested a meeting on March 30, 1982 with the residents and the owners to try and come up with an alternative. Mr. Mike Larson stated he was not aware there was a way to tie in a rezoning with a plat, but felt they had nothing to lose in going along with the meeting. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, was also asked to attend this meeting which will be held March 30, 1982, 7:30 p. m. at the City Hall , Community Room I. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to continue this public hearing to April 5, 1982. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 5 CON RATION OF APPOINTMENT TO ENERGY COMMISSION (TABLED 3/8/8 : MOTION by Coun an Hamernik to nominate Bill Jordan for appointment to the Energy Commissi Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Councilman Hamernik stated Mr, rd an has indicated an interest in serving on the Energy Commission an until has his resume and his qualifications are very impressive in th .eld of energy conservation. Councilman Hamernik stated he believed Mr. Jo would be a good addition to the Energy Commission. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to cast a unanimous ballot for -he appointment of Bill Jordan to the Energy Commission. Seconded by----_ -- Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i G2_ . . C UNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982 PAGE 10 OLD USINESS: 3 CONSID RATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE UTY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA BY MAKING CHANGES IN ZONING DISTRICTS FROM R-3 TO CR-1 (ZOA #80-02 1001 HILLWIND ROAD, TED BURANDT dba: SWING REA TY TABLED 1/18/82 : Mr. Boardma , City Planner, stated an appraisal is being done on the property by he Housing & Redevelopment Authority. Councilman Sch eider stated Mr. Burandt, the petitioner for the rezoning, is in agreement with continuing this item to April 19, 1982. MOTION by Council an Schneider to table the second reading of this ordinance for rezo ing application ZOA #82-02 until April 19, 1982. Seconded by Council an Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared t e motion carried unanimously. L ORDINANCE NO. 747 REPE LING OLD CHAPTER 220 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADO TING NEW CHAPTER 220 ENTITLED RESIDENTIAL - RENTAL PROPERTY AND COND MINIUM COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE CODE: MOTION by Councilman Fitzp trick to waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 747 on the se and reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Up n a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried u animously. NEW BUSINESS: �j RECEIVING CABLE TELEVISION COMMIS ON MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18 1982: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to re eive the minutes of the Cable Television Commission Meeting of Feb ary 18, 1982. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice v te, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion tarried unani usly. ` RECEIVING CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION MI UTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 1982 .y AND G ACONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITATION OF PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEN FROM NORTHERN CABLEVISION, INC.: Mayor Nee asked this item be tabled and discus ed at the Conference Meeting and brought on the Council's agenda for the April 5, 1982 meeting. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table this item t the April 5, 1982 Council meeting. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion arried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minute of the Cable Television Commission Meeting of February 25, 1982. Se onded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. C� RECEIVING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1982: The Council received the minutes of the Planning Commission eting of March 10, 1982 and considered the following items: i R A CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L. Sj#82^02, TO MAKE\A BUILDABLE LOT, 6530 OAKLEY STREET, MARK ANDERSON: 1A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Mr. Anderson and inform him of the Planning Commission's action. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #82-01 , BY W. G. DOTY- AND GARY A. WELLNER: Rezone the following described parcels from M-1 (light in ustria areas) to R-2 (two family dwelling areas) ' (except if this area is platted, 1 lot will be R-1 ) : That part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easterly one-half of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, generally located South of Mississippi Street N.E. , East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner originally brought a rezoning request before the Planning Commission early in 1981 . At that time, the proposal was for a rezoning from M-1 (light industrial ) to R-3 (general multiple dwellings). Also included in that rezoning request was a street vacation. Because of neighborhood opposition to R-3, Mr. Doty withdrew the rezoning request, so it did not go to City Council . However, the street vacation was approved by City Council . Mr. Boardman stated this proposal was for rezoning from M-1 to R-2 (two family dwelling areas) and that a small portion be rezoned R-1 . This would have to be determined through the plat, and at some point in time, they will have to get both the platting and zoning together before it goes to City Council for final approval . Right now, they cannot split the land as far as the actual legal description on the zoning; however, the zoning issue is the key issue as to whether this project will go or not go. For that reason, Mr. Doty has not applied for a plat and is submitting only a rezoning. He asked Mr. Doty to explain his plans for development. Mr. Doty stated this property is bounded on the west by the railroad tracks, is bounded on the north by light industrial , and is bounded on the east by multiple residential . In an attempt to get along with the people, they made the concession to make an R-1 adjacent to the one R-1 property this property abuts. He stated the zoning is presently light industrial . He and Mr. Wellner felt M-1 was not the proper use for the property in that location because of the residential neighborhood. They felt that with apartment complexes, manufacturing, and industrial that R-1 was also not a proper use for the land. For that reason, they came up with what they thought was a realistic compromise--R-2 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Wellner stated that Mr. Doty has expressed his thoughts, and he is in support of this proposal . Mr. Michael Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd. , stated he wanted to point out that the drawing Mr. Doty had brought to the meeting was the first time the neighborhood had seen it. He stated his R-1 property was most affected by this change in zoning. He stated he and his neighbors have a number of concerns, and he sub- mitted the following letter to the Planning Commission members: The neighbors of the Sylvan Hills area most directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, are unanimously supportive of either maintaining the current M-1 zoning or upgrading the zoning to R-1 . We cannot conceive of an instance where we would approve of an R-2 zoning for this parcel ! Some of the reasons for our concerns are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD INCOMPATIBILITY. . . Our neighborhood is almost entirely single family homes with the exception of the apartments on Satellite Lane. We are rood of our homes. We work hard to maintain a pleasant appearance an ere y maintain the value of our homes. TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. . . Satellite Lane is a narrow road and we have had to restrict parking to avoid accidents and assure the safety of our children. The proposed rezoning could allow 7 duplex structures or 14 living units. If each of those units averaaes 1 and 1/2 cars, there would be 21 cars to park in an area comprised of a very short cul-de-sac and 14 driveways! The additional traffic would increase the traffic risks to an unreasonable level . IMPACT ON HOME VALUES. . . Whatever incremental profits would accrue to the developer by obtaining R-2 zoning would be more than offset by the reduction in the value of our homes. We are convinced ths eve opinent under - cou e pro a e to the developer. Consider the new construction of an impressive single-family home at 6380 Starlite Blvd. as proof of the viability of our area. CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS. . . We see little risk in maintaining_ the M-1 zoning because this property is essentiall-�laand oc e Trom an industrial development viewpoint. Even if some industrial development were pursued, we feel confident it may be preferential to R-2 development. THE LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR OPINIONS. . . At no time has the developer contacted neighbors to discuss his thoughts and perspective. Apparently they feel they should be allowed to develop their property as they see fit to do so! The fact that they didn't do their homework prior to purchase of the property doesn't mean we nave 73—surrender our home values to their ineptitude. �► 1 B PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Wellner stated that Mr. Doty has expressed his thoughts, and he is in support of this proposal . Mr. Michael Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd. , stated he wanted to point out that the drawing Mr. Doty had brought to the meeting was the first time the neighborhood had seen it. He stated his R-1 property was most affected by this change in zoning. He stated he and his neighbors have a number of concerns, and he sub- mitted the following letter to the Planning Commission members: The neighbors of the Sylvan Hills area most directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, are unanimously supportive of either maintaining the current M-1 zoning or upgrading the zoning to R-1 . We cannot conceive of an instance where we would approve of an R-2 zoning for this parcel ! Some of the reasons for our concerns are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD INCOMPATIBILITY. . . Our neighborhood is almost entirely single family homes with the exception of the apartments on Satellite Lane. We are proud of our homes. We work hard to maintain a pleasant appearance and thereb7 maintain the value of our homes. TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. . . Satellite Lane is a narrow road and we have had to restrict parking to avoid accidents and assure the safety of our children. The proposed rezoning could allow 7 duplex structures or 14 iving units. If each of those units averaaes 1 and 1/2 cars, there would be 21 cars to park in an area comprised of a very short cul-de-sac and 14 driveways! The additional traffic would increase the traffic risks to an unreasonable level . IMPACT ON HOME VALUES. . . Whatever incremental profits would accrue to the developer by obtaining R-2 zoning would be more than offset b the reduction in the value of our homes. We are cony nced- ha eve opment un er - cou a pro �'1ab�fe to the developer. Consider the new construction of an impressive single-family home at 6380 Starlite Blvd. as proof of the viability of our area. CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS. . . We see little risk in maintaining the M-1 zoning because this property is esse�eaey— a—n—d- oc e 1•rom an in us rial development viewpoint. Even if some industrial development were pursued, we feel confident it may be preferential to R-2 development. THE LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR OPINIONS. . . At no time has the developer contacted neighbors to discuss his thoughts and perspective. Apparently they feel they should be allowed to develop their property as they see fit to do so! The fact that they didn't do their homework prior to purchase of the property doesn mean we aveo surren er our home values to their ineptitude. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 5 WE QUESTION THEIR REAL INTENT. . . Are they seeking R-2 zoning knowing our neighborhood will o ,pec Do they intend to then "compromise" for R-1 with alot of variances attached? Having someone propose specific construction of a planned development is one thing. Having someone seek a change in zoning so they can sell individual lots to individual builders, is an entirely different risk. In summary, WE REQUEST AND DEMAND THAT THE REQUEST FOR R-2 ZONING BE DENIED to PRESERVE OUR PEIGHBORHOOD, MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY VALUES, AND ASSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR M Mr. Bill Zurbey, 145 Sylvan Lane, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 19 years. Quite a few years ago, they had a sewer problem in this neighborhood, and he wondered if anyone had done any research as to whether the current sewer system would handle duplexes. Mr. Boardman stated the sewer capacity was checked when Mr. Doty had applied for the rezoning to R-3. At that time, the City Engineering Dept. felt there was adequate sewer capacity for that type of development. Mr.Robert Olson, RAO Manufacturing, stated he was at the meeting for information, and not to approve or disapprove the proposal . He stated he understood that with the development of the property to R-2, it would increase RAO's setback to 50 ft. He stated they are now 50 ft. from the back line so there were no problems with that. He wanted to know if there were any other restrictions that would restrict the possible use of their property because of this development. Mr. Boardman stated that besides the setback requirement, there are screening requirements for loading areas. Mr. Olson stated one concern he had would be the grading required to put in these units. RAO's property is quite a bit higher than Satellite Lane. If the developer would have to dig out to lower all the units to the level of Satellite Lane, there could be quite a drop. He stated if there were no other major changes, he would have no objection to this development. Ms. Judy Kidder, 6360 Starlite Blvd. , stated she supported everything Mr. Larson had said. He has done an excellent job in organizing the neighborhood as can be seen by the number of people who turned out for the meeting. She stated the neighborhood sincerely believes this property could be developed into R-1 and it would be the best solution for both parties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 6 Mr. Larson stated one of the reasons they are not concerned with the property being zoned light industrial is because they benefit from RAO Manufacturing, which is probably one of the neatest buildings, from an industrial standpoint, in Fridley, or maybe in the Twin Cities. As a homeowner, he appreciated that and wished all industrial property was maintained as well . Mr. Doty stated he understood the neighbors ' feeling and was not unsympathetic to the fact that no one wants a multiple dwelling built in his/her R-1 neighbor- hood. In his 20 years of real estate, he has yet to find or witness an R-1 neighborhood that was in favor of a multiple residential adjacent to it. However, he hoped they could allay some of the neighborhood's fears. Mr. Doty stated it is not feasible or likely that anyone is going to build a double bungalow for under $120,000. He stated they have submitted some various plans as to what the structures might look like. He stated they are very nice units. He stated they cannot at this time make a commitment to build those units on those lots because of today's interest rates. FHA interest rates are 162%. Financing on double bungalows would dictate they be sold to owner occupants. Mr. Doty stated they talked to Mr. Robert Olson about a year ago as far as industrial for this property. They talked about buying some property and coming in along the south side of RAO, but they discovered this was not feasible. They talked about the possibility of selling the land to RAO because of neighbor- hood opposition, but RAO felt they had sufficient land for further expansion and would not need this additional land. Mr. Doty stated the property is presently zoned M-1 . They are requesting a down- zoning. He is not so certain that a plan must have neighborhood approval , and he is not so certain that a neighborhood can -Jemandwhat a private property owner does with his land as long as it is within the proper zoning requirements. Again, he wanted to emphasize that this land is M-1 , it is bordered by the rail - road tracks , light industrial , and R-3 Multiple housing. They are requesting an R-2 zoning. Ms. Gabel stated Mr. Larson had made the statement about the possibility of the individual lots being sold and developed by individual builders. Would that happen or did Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner plan to develop all of it themselves? Mr. Wellner stated it was their original intention to buy the property and develop it themselves. If the economy is such that they can develop it themselves, that is what they will do; however, they cannot guarantee that. Ms. Judy Kidder stated people have lived in their neighborhood for years. They feel that even with duplexes, there will be a constant turnover of tenants-- even in the one-half. Right now, they do not get that constant change in residents, and they do not feel it is fair to change the character of their neighborhood so much. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 6 Mr. Larson stated one of the reasons they are not concerned with the property being zoned light industrial is because they benefit from RAO Manufacturing, which is probably one of the neatest buildings, from an industrial standpoint, in Fridley, or maybe in the Twin Cities. As a homeowner, he appreciated that and wished all industrial property was maintained as well . Mr. Doty stated he understood the neighbors' feeling and was not unsympathetic to the fact that no one wants a multiple dwelling built in his/her R-1 neighbor- hood. In his 20 years of real estate, he has yet to find or witness an R-1 neighborhood that was in favor of a multiple residential adjacent to it. However, he hoped they could allay some of the neighborhood's fears. Mr. Doty stated it is not feasible or likely that anyone is going to build a double bungalow for under $120,000. He stated they have submitted some various plans as to what the structures might look like. He stated they are very nice units. He stated they cannot at this time make a commitment to build those units on those lots because of today's interest rates. FHA interest rates are 162%. Financing on double bungalows would dictate they be sold to owner occupants. Mr. Doty stated they talked to Mr. Robert Olson about a year ago as far as industrial for this property. They talked about buying some property and coming in along the south side of RAO, but they discovered this was not feasible. They talked about the possibility of selling the land to RAO because of neighbor- hood opposition, but RAO felt they had sufficient land for further expansion and would not need this additional land. Mr. Doty stated the property is presently zoned M-1 . They are requesting a down- zoning. He is not so certain that a plan must have neighborhood approval , and he is not so certain that a neighborhood can 3emand what a private property owner does with his land as long as it is within the proper zoning requirements. Again, he wanted to emphasize that this land is M-1 , it is bordered by the rail- road tracks, light industrial , and R-3 Multiple housing. They are requesting an R-2 zoning. Ms. Gabel stated Mr. Larson had made the statement about the possibility of the individual lots being sold and developed by individual builders. Would that happen or did Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner plan to develop all of it themselves? Mr. Wellner stated it was their original intention to buy the property and develop it themselves. If the economy is such that they can develop it themselves, that is what they will do; however, they cannot guarantee that. Ms. Judy Kidder stated people have lived in their neighborhood for years. They feel that even with duplexes, there will be a constant turnover of tenants-- even in the one-half. Right now, they do not get that constant change in residents, and they do not feel it is fair to change the character of their neighborhood so much. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Larson stated he felt it was his and the neighborhood's concern that these lots will be haphazardly sold off to individual builders. He stated Mr. Doty showed nice drawings of prospective structures, but that doesn't mean anything unless it is tied in with the rezoning. Again, he spoke for the neighbors when he said they are tremendously upset about this and heartily recommend the Planning Commission reject the rezoning. Mr. Frank Liebl stated he sympathized with Mr. Doty. Mr. Doty has a right to develop his property, but not at the neighborhood's expense. He stated there is already too much traffic. Because of the multiple residential north of Satellite, there is too much density in that area right now. He stated there are also definite sewer problems in that area, and Staff should look into this problem. Mr. Wellner stated he wanted to speak as a present homeowner who has property adjacent to duplexes. His property is on Sunrise Drive, and Star Lane has all duplexes on one side of the street. He in no way thought those duplexes depreciated the value of his home, because the property owners keep them in nice condition. He has lived for many years next to duplexes. He does not have the noise problems the neighborhood is alluding to, he does not have any more traffic than living next to a single family home with 2-3-4 cars. He did not think the traffic argument was as strong as the neighborhood would like to make it, and he did not think they could make the generalization that duplexes would devalue their properties. He stated they could do some market analysis that would show this was not necessarily the case. Mr. Dennis Johnson, 6336 Starlite Blvd. , stated he lives on the west side of Starlite Blvd. , and their children like to play at Sylvan Park. They have to cross the street to get to the park. Starlite is almost an extension of Main Street and carries a lot of traffic, much of which is above the speed limit, and the street is not safe for children. He would like to keep the traffi-c on their street at a minimum, and he felt construction of single family homes was a way to keep that traffic at a minimum. Mr. Saba stated that regarding the issue of the care of double bungalows, he has seen some excellent double bungalows, and he has seen some very bad double bungalows. He stated where neighborhoods are kept up, the double bungalows are usually kept up also, but as a neighborhood deteriorates, so do the multiple dwellings. He stated that at today's costs, there are some pretty nice double bungalows being built. He liked the effort Mr. Doty had made to put a buffer between the double bungalows and the single family residential . He stated he felt R-2 was a fair compromise. He thought they should also consider the sewage problem that has been brought up, and the City owes the neighborhood an answer to that concern. He did not know if they could address the rezoning issue at this meeting without an answer to the sewage problem. Mr. Boardman stated he would do some more checking into the sewer problems to see if there are any solutions to the problem. He stated he had discussed the sewer capacity with the Engineering Dept. for R-3, and they had indicated the sewer capacity was adequate for R-3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 8 Ms. Catherine Scherven 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. stated she does not object Y � � to double bungalows, because she and her husband are thinking about buying one. But, she did not think this area was a good area for double bungalows, because of the traffic situation and the water situation. She stated that whenever there is a rain, their street runs like a river. The water comes down Starlite and down Sylvan towards the park. With more run-off from a cul-de-sac, the water situation would be even worse. Ms. Gabel stated she would like the Planning Commission to know more about the sewer capacity before making a decision, and she would like to see this item tabled. Mr. Wellner stated he and Mr. Doty are not asking for any platting at the present time, and it would seem to him that answers to the sewer objections could be found out between now and the time they would come forth with a plat. At that time, the City could determine whether or not the sewer capacity was adequate for the development. All they are asking for now is a rezoning, and it would seem to him that the City would have control as to whether the development could be handled by the utilities at that time. He did think it was a question that should be answered, but he was not at all certain the sewer issue should dictate approval or disapproval of the rezoning request. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Wellner. If there is a sewer problem, there will be one whether it is an R-2 development or an R-1 development. The sewer question has nothing to do with the rezoning. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA ##82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:05 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he did not necessarily agree that this rezoning request should be tabled. He stated he has always argued for the right of the owner of the property to be able to develop the property within reason. He felt there was going to be a sewer problem no matter what kind of development went in. But, because of the density already in the area with the multiple dwellings and the existing traffic problems, he would have to vote against the rezoning. Ms. Gabel stated there are so many other things that could be developed on this property under the current zoning, which could generate a whole different kind of traffic for that residential street. That bothered her in terms of leaving the zoning M-1 . However, she agreed the density was probably has high as it should be and would be inclined to vote against the rezoning. Mr. Kondrick stated he shared Mr. Oquist's point of view on density. He would like to see the area better handled with single family residential . 1F PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 8 Ms. Catherine Scherven, 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. , stated she does not object to double bungalows, because she and her husband are thinking about buying one. But, she did not think this area was a good area for double bungalows, because of the traffic situation and the water situation. She stated that whenever there is a rain, their street runs like a river. "The water comes down Starlite and down Sylvan towards the park. With more run-off from a cul-de-sac, the water situation would be even worse. Ms. Gabel stated she would like the Planning Commission to know more about the sewer capacity before making a decision, and she would like to see this item tabled. Mr. Wellner stated he and Mr. Doty are not asking for any platting at the present time, and it would seem to him that answers to the sewer objections could be found out between now and the time they would come forth with a plat. At that time, the City could determine whether or not the sewer capacity was adequate for the development. All they are asking for now is a rezoning, and it would seem to him that the City would have control as to whether the development could be handled by the utilities at that time. He did think it was a question that should be answered, but he was not at all certain the sewer issue should dictate approval or disapproval of the rezoning request. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Wellner. If there is a sewer problem, there will be one;whether it is an R-2 development or an R-1 development. The sewer question has nothing to do with the rezoning. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:05 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he did not necessarily agree that this rezoning request should be tabled. He stated he has always argued for the right of the owner of the property to be able to develop the property within reason. He felt there was going to be a sewer problem no matter what kind of development went in. But, because of the density already in the area with the multiple dwellings and the existing traffic problems, he would have to vote against the rezoning. Ms. Gabel stated there are so many other things that could be developed on this property under the current zoning, which could generate a whole different kind of traffic for that residential street. That bothered her in terms of leaving the zoning M-1 . However, she agreed the density was probably has high as it should be and would be inclined to vote against the rezoning. Mr. Kondrick stated he shared Mr. Oquist's point of view on density. He would like to see the area better handled with single family residential . 0 1G PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 9 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS FROM M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS) , TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS) , (EXCEPT IF THIS AREA IS PLATTED 1 LOT WILL BE R-1) : THAT PART OF BLOCKS 8 AND 9, LOWELL ADDITION, LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, EXTENDED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 8, AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET, AND THAT PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, LOWELL ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E., EAST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY' FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. EXISTING DENSITY 2. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doty if he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the motion or did he wish to withdraw his request? Mr. Doty stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the rezoning request. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, SVANDA, KONDRICK, SABA, AND GABEL VOTING AYE, HARRIS ABSTAINING, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Harris stated that ZOA #82-01 was recommended to City Council for denial and would go to City Council on March 22. Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. 4. ,, RECEIVE FEBRUARY 1 , 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MMR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 1, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, LL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 26, 198 ,,.APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR:`KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JANUARY 26, 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �. 6. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1982, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 2, 1982, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 10 RECEIVE FEBRUARY 4, 1982, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 1982, HUMAN\RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 9, 1982, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KOVRRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 9, 1982, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. S UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL.VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4`� 9. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 16,1.82, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED,,--BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 16, 1982, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION, MINUTES. Mr. Svanda stated the Commission had made two motions: (1 ) to recommend that the Mayor proclaim April 18-24 as "Fridley Recycling Week" and to request City Staff to pursue activities and ideaN� rough the media to promote the recycling week; and (2) to recommend that the City Offices accelerate their recycling efforts and that the City collect all recyclable items to take to the SORT Recycling Center during "Recycling Week" int order to help publicize the recycling effort and set an example for the rest of the community. Mr. Svanda stated he would like Planning Commission to concur with these recommendations. UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO CONCUR-,WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIONYS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAYOR OF FRIDLEY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF APRIL 18-24 AS "FRIDLEY RECYCLING WEEK" AND TO REQUEST STAFF TO PURSUE ACTIVITIES AND IDEAS THROUGH THE AVAILABLE MEDIA. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONCUR WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY OFFICES ACCELERATE THEIR RECYCLING EFFORTS AND THAT THE CITY THEN TAKE THE PAPER PRODUCTS AND OTHER RECYCLABLES TO THE S.O.R.T. RECYCLING CENTER DURING RECYCLING WEEK TO SERVE AS AS EXAMPLE TO THE CITIZENS OF FRIDLEY. ^ 1 BLAINE 18 COON RAPIDS !• r t% IIL f, HE SPRING LAKE PARK —_ Ll-.� ULJLJLJtJ �65 N—;—*,–..�s ;,rye • � a. /w\ � N • " aB�].VU�.. X82, �.! ; 3 TroiM. L.JL9�� ff n -81 Tr l ADD eaar a 6 r�I r W � Ce, n � D _ ;< - U.-11 e0� ��o or. 35 oa®a - ��® + Y ra • O o�,.•m a I.IaMtdFT �OJ W 0 R ® ® I •aJ� �1- _ � a Z � 691 �� :2.�f�•.1 J � eca.aR•;>�. Ler ao+.!• -� s�.�.00ae�c. Li S� COLUMBIA q HEIGHTS ce.ur•e II.r.�Jl a C .,M® C - ..=a©a C STREET MAP-CITY OF - lgdD E. FRI DLEY �.a 0 A333 6,666 w ■- r w i 2 a 1 •r.w ��wr.•.a 1 1 I ,.� ANOKA CO. ..–.../I HE PIN CO. 113 MINNEAPOLIS ! HIS IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS THE ANOKA COUNTY THEY APPEAR IN OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA SHO`.'Yt` gE USED ONLY FOR I . THi- tST O IF_FE.RENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUr�1- � a� TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. 5391 jV E.1/4 CORNER _ ST. �� 1 F �.; �Q 9 8 7 C S 9M 3 ,Z /$ bi Ao 00 10 8 SIOWA Y AN , :Z Q 79 Z 249of z 8 p f r STELLITE LANE 1,7 + .� wAY _ 100 z Im 44 foil 14clI � ,I v f 1SYLVAIy LANE ^'s-- i o wAY _ ic • • i ------ -------- - - -- .. � � -- ---- 1 J �; 4 A � � 1 0 0 �. - o �, Q ��-� �� 0 � o � � L .I �� - � _z � � � x W I I 0 0 0 � $" L, �- '� o s a PLAT REQUEST HISTORY June 2, 198 John Flora city of Fridley Fridley, Minnesota Dear John, At your reqrest, I 'm writing to you to clarify what we intend to do on lots 3,4, & S of the Doty-Wellner Addition . Our preliminary plans called for a building configuration to be different on the above lots than the other zero-lot- line lots on the plat . However, after reconsidering several factors prior to final approval by the council we had determined that it would be in the best interest of evervone to build units that would meet or exceed the square footage requirements of the city. Therefore, at the time that we submitted the final plat, we asked for several variances to allow us to meet* the above require- ments and, if we choose, to build double car garages on each of the lots . I am enclosing a rough shetch showing a potential unit with a double car garage on each of the units . We are not, at this time able to give the exact measure- ments for the buildings for each lot, not are we able to commit ourselves to all units having a two car garage . I would like to once again assure you that we will comply with all the variances as approved by the council and that we will do all we can to enhance the development of this area (ie oreserving oak trees, off street parking etc) . As you are aware, we are oresently building the first double on lot 2 in the addition . Each unit will have a two car garage with a bedroom above that area. We plan to build similar structures on the remaining lots with each unit exceeding the minimum square footage require- ment . Sincerely, Gary Weqlner -L TF1! co ry CW DIRECTORATE o o-0 OF °'o 0 MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS FRIDL Y DATE Jime 2, 1983 FROM D.P.W. John G. Flora TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Doty/Wellner PLAT Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager On July 21, 1982, the City Council approved the Final PLAT PS 82-01 Doty/Wellner Addition with a number of varinaces to allow zero lot line doubles to be constructed on five of the lots. In addition, one stipulation was added which stated that the proposed buildings A and B be followed as presented to City Staff as far as the size of the structures. Mr. Wellner has now indicated that he wishes to construct buildings with double garages (Type A) in lieu of single garages (Type B) originally shown on the preliminary plat. This is a positive change and does not effect the variances allowed (as presented). If the City Council does not object to this change, we will issue building permits for this construction. JGF/mc Attachments G (5 ter.(1 'w 1` dl' mfr/( G • • 2B CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1982 LL TO ORDER: Chai man Schnabel called the May 5, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order a :35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Schnabel , Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel , Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. n Dan, Mr. Saba Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Board City Planner Gary Wellner, 62 Sunrise Dr. Bill Kidder, 6360 8- - , lite Blvd. Jerry Severt, 100 Sate 'te Lane Michael Larson, 6390 Stare' a Blvd. Lillian Meyer, 7868 Alden Wa .., .E. - League of Women Voters APPROVAL OF APRIL 21 , 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE RIL 21, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLATP.S. #82-01 , DOTY WELLNER ADDITION, BY W. G. D TY D GARY ELLNER: Being t at part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easterly one-half of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots land 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, to be developed as three R-1 lots (single family dwelling areas) and 5 R-2 lots (two family dwelling areas) , generally located South of Mississippi St. N.E. , East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON P.S. #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:38 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Hamernik and Mr. Qureshi met with the petitioners and some of the residents and came up with a plat similar to what the Planning Commission members had before them. He stated the front three lots will be R-1 . He stated Staff is working on a new zoning ordinance that allows zero lot line twin homes where the units themselves may be owner occupied. So. when the plat is approved, the five lots in the rear could be split so that each unit could be zero lot line home. Mr. Boardman stated the actual plat has not yet arrived and they were expecting it to be delivered to the Planning Commission sometime during the meeting. Mr. Wellner stated he has not seen the plat since it came out of the surveyor's office, but the intent on the five rear lots is to build duplexes with a zero lot line with the intention of selling each half to a separate buyer. The square footage of all the lots meets the code requirements. He stated he thought there were 1-2 lots that may need a variance in terms of the width of the lot itself. Mr. Boardman stated that included with the approval of the plat will be approval of the variances necessary, with the lots, in order to develop structures. Ms. Gabel stated she did not necessarily agree they should approve the variances at the same time they approve the plat. Mr. Boardman stated if they approve the plat, they approve the variances applicable to the lot. He was not saying they should approve all the variances of the structure, because those variances can only be approved when the structure is brought in and looked at. But, when they approve a plat that is less than the required width, then there is automatic approval of the variances. The indication they have gotten from the City Attorney is that the City Council does have the authority to approve variances with plats without going through the variance procedure. The reason for this is that the variance procedure requires a public hearing and notification within 200 feet. The platting procedure requires notification within 300 feet, therefore, that notification allows for more public input. Mr. Wellner stated the conversation he has had with the surveyor and Mr. Qureshi is that they are going to try to keep all the lots with not less than a 65 ft. setback. Ms. Schnabel stated that since the preliminary plat has not yet arrived, they should continue this item until the end of the meeting and continue on with the rest of the agenda items. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO CONTINUE P.S. ##82-01 UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2C PLANNING• COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Hamernik and Mr. Qureshi met with the petitioners and some of the residents and came up with a plat similar to what the Planning Commission members had before them. He stated the front three lots will be R-1 . He stated Staff is working on a new zoning ordinance that allows zero lot line twin homes where the units themselves may be owner occupied. So. when the plat is approved, the five lots *in the rear could be split so that each unit could be zero lot line home. . Mr. Boardman stated the actual plat has not yet arrived and they were expecting it to be delivered to the Planning Commission sometime during the meeting. Mr. Wellner stated he has not seen the plat since it came out of the surveyor's office, but the intent on the five rear lots is to build duplexes with a zero lot line with the intention of selling each half to a separate buyer. The square footage of all the lots meets the code requirements. He stated he thought there were 1-2 lots that may need a variance in terms of the width of the lot itself. Mr. Boardman stated that included with the approval of the plat will be approval of the variances necessary, with the lots, in order to develop structures. Ms. Gabel stated she did not necessarily agree they should approve the variances at the same time they approve the plat. Mr. Boardman stated if they approve the plat, they approve the variances applicable to the lot. He was not saying they should approve all the variances of the structure, because those variances can only be approved when the structure is brought in and looked at. But, when they approve a plat that is less than the required width, then there is automatic approval of the variances. The indication they have gotten from the City Attorney is that the City Council does have the authority to approve variances with plats without going through the variance procedure. The reason for this is that the variance procedure requires a public hearing and notification within 200 feet. The platting procedure requires notification within 300 feet, therefore, that notification allows for more public input. • Mr. Wellner stated the conversation he has had with the surveyor and Mr. Qureshi is that they are going to try to keep all the lots with not less than a 65 ft. setback. Ms. Schnabel stated that since the preliminary plat has not yet arrived, they should continue this item until the end of the meeting and continue on with the I est of the agenda items. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO CONTINUE P.S. #82-01 UNTIL LATER-IN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • J ' 2D PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1982 PAGE 5 fAppeals Commission meeting, she thought they should discuss the possi- bility of"iq some kind of hand-out that a petitioner would receive from Staff when that p omen in to fill out an application. It might help the public in terms of what k nd' #_ !formation is needed before appearing before the Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNA�BEL YJEC D THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - (5.• CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. 82-01 ; ' DOTY/WEL NER ADDITION, BY*W. G. DOTY ND'GA Y EL R Public hearing open. Mr. Wellner stated the plat had not yet arrived. Mr. Boardman stated the plat is going to be similar to the drawing the Planning Commission members had in their agenda packet. He stated the Planning Commission is only reviewing the preliminary plat. Final plat is prepared and submitted to the City Council , and the City Council will be reviewing the final plat with a public hearing also. Mr. Michael Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd. , stated he would have a problem with the Planning Commission approving a plat they had not seen. Mr. Wellner stated he had called the surveyor, and there was nothing substantially different in the plat than what the Planning Commission had before them. He stated they have already scheduled with the City of Fridley for sewer, water, and street. By not acting on the preliminary plat, they will be delayed another month, or it could possibly set them back 4-5 months. Ms. Schnabel stated she could understand the problems Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty were facing, but since the plat was not at the meeting, she would feel very uncomfortable acting on the plat without seeing it. Mr. Wellner stated he was concerned with the timetable only, because they are scheduled to go before City Council with final plat on June 7. Mr. Boardman stated they may want the Planning Commission to authorize the public hearing notification so they can still have the June 7 public hearing at City Council for final plat. Mr. Wellner stated he would have no problem with that. r. Wellner stated the intent of this plat is to provide the opportunity for gro lot line;however, he, as the builder, would not be forced to sell all the d plex units. He could maintain them as duplexes and could rent out both sides. The reason for this is it is extremely difficult to get financing for a $140,000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 59 ' 1982 . . . . . PAGE 6 unit, but this would allow them to be able to sell one-half of a unit for a $70,000 mortgage, which was more affordable. But, he stated he did not think the intent was to force this all into an R-1 development. The intent is to provide the opportunity for zero lot line so they have the flexibility of selling one-half of a duplex separately. Mr. Larson stated he is representing the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was going to reject the rezoning and take their chances with the M-1 zoning, but they have compromised with the rezoning of Lots 1 , 7, and 8 as R-1 and Lots 2-6 as R-2, providing Mr. Qureshi can provide zero lot lines to increase the potential for owner-occupied units, a requirement for attached or tuck-under garages, and minimum square footages for the structures. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #82-01, DOTY/WELLNER ADDITION, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELLNER, UNTIL THE MAY 19, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 7, 1982. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MAY 5, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, y Saba Recording Secretary 2E PLANNING COMMISSION'MEETING, 'MAY 5, - 1982 . . . . . . . ... PAGE 6 unit, but this would allow them to be able to sell one-half of a unit for a $70,000 mortgage, which was more affordable. But, he stated he did not think the intent was to force this all into an R-1 development. The intent is to provide the opportunity for zero lot line so they have the flexibility of selling one-half of 'a-- duplex separately. Mr. Larson stated he is representing the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was going to reject the rezoning and take their chances with the M-1 zoning, but they have compromised with the rezoning of Lots 1 , 7, and 8 as R-1 and Lots 2-6 as R-2, providing Mr. Qureshi can provide zero lot lines to increase the potential for owner-occupied units, a requirement for attached or tuck-under garages, and minimum square footages for the structures. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #82-01, DOTY/WELLNER ADDITION, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELLNER, UNTIL THE MAY 19, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 7, 1982. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DJOURNMENT: MOTION BY lit. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE .MAY 5, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, y Saba Recording Secretary i CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Schnabel, called the May 19, 1982, Planning .Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. \ ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schn bel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel , Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van D , Mr. Saba Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman City Planner Gary Wellner, 622 Sunrise Drive Michael Larson, 639 Starlite Blvd. Joy & Scott Anderson, 7921 Riverview Terrace Kenyon Blunt, 7th & Ma uette, Mpls. William Weber, BRW, Inc. 2829 Univ. Ave. S.E. Curt Saunders, 320 - 7th S.E. Mr. & Mrs. Rod Brannon, Sol Wash, Inc. APPROVAL OF MAY 5, 1982, PLANNING COPMIISSION MINU MOTION BY AR. SABA, SECONDED BY 11S. GABF.L, TO APPROVE HE MAY 5, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRTIOMAN SCHNABEL DEC ED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. , #82-01 , DOTYJWEL NER -ADDITION, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WE LNER: Being a replat o a part of _B1_o_cVs__"8__and 9, Lowellion, lying To-u-of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the Plat of Sylvan Hills.Plat 8, together with the Easterly one-half of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, to be developed as three R-1 lots (single family dwelling areas) and 5 R-2 lots (two family dwelling areas), generally located South of Mississippi St. N.E., East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commission has now received the preliminary plat. As was discussed at the last Plannin Commission meeting, Lots 1, 7, and 8 will be zoned R-1 (single family lots}q, and Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 2 will be zoned R-2 (duplex or double lots). He. stated Mr. Wellner was in the audience to answer any questions on the proposed plat. Ms. Schnabel stated she had more questions with the zoning part of it. She asked if Staff had developed a new ordinance for twin homes yet. Mr. Boardman stated Staff was still working on it. He stated Staff had actually decided against going with a new zone. They are going to try to allow zero lot line with a special use permit or through the platting or- dinance, to stay within the same zones. What they could do was amend a portion of R-2 and R-3 with a provision that would allow zero lot line with special use permit approval . He stated he thought they would have a lot of problems in setting up a new zone specifically for zero lot line. In this situation, it would still be zoned R-2 and R-3, and at some point in time, if the owner wanted to go through a lot split, they would have to obtain a special use permit for zero lot line. Ms. Schnabel stated where she saw some problems in this whole concept was in the area of maintenance--the exterior maintenance of a dwelling as well as yard maintenance. She felt a little uncomfortable with this whole thing unless it was really defined as to what they are going to do. Mr. Boardman stated they could all be required with a special use permit. They could put covenants or restrictions on the lot splits that would be placed on the deed. Ms. van Dan stated she just could not visualize how, at some point in the future, these lots could be split and owned by two separate individuals. Mr. Boardman stated duplexes are allowed by certain densities. By split- ting the ownership of a duplex, they do not change the density, and that is - why Staff felt the best way to go was with zero lot line. Developers can to to zero lot lines right now with duplexes, but they have to go through about 5-6 variances. Ms. Gabel stated Mr. Boardman had just given another argument in favor of having a separate "twin home" zone. Mr. Boardman had stated they could go with zero lot line now, but they have to go through all kinds of variance procedures. She felt that in the future, there are going to be a lot of requests for this kind of concept in order for people to afford housing, and it seemed to her that the City shoul.d just write a zoning ordinance to apply to it. Otherwise, every time there is 'a request for zero lot line, they are going to have to go through both a lot split and special use permit process. It was a lot of red tape for everyone. Mr. Boardman stated zoning codes should control densities, not situations within those densities. If they are going to allow zero lot line, then it should be allowed in that kind of density, and it should be allowed for existing units in that type of density as well as for new developments. Then, every time an existing unit is split, the owner has to go through a rezoning, and the question comes back: Is this spot rezoning? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Oquist asked what difference it made whether they had to come in for a request for rezoning or a request for a special use permit? Ms. Gabel stated some kind of provision could be written into the code to eliminate some of the red tape procedures. Mr. Boardman stated the only other thing is to eliminate the special use permit and allow zero lot lines with lot splits within the platting ordinance. Mr. Schnabel stated there may be cases where they will not want to permit the zero lot line concept or the split, except on new development, because they may be creating some other problems they haven't looked at yet. Mr. Boardman stated if a petitioner meets all the conditions that are laid out in whatever process is set up, he felt they would have a hard time restricting a person from splitting a lot just because it was an existing unit. Ms. Schnabel .said some of these zoning questions may be a little premature, but she would like these concerns in the record so the City Council can see some of the Planning Commission's concerns and also for future discussion when the ordinance is rewritten and brought back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated that she wondered if the City Council had understood and if Mr. Larson and the neighbors had understood that these units would be owner-occupied from the start or did they see it as something down the line? Mr. Larson stated the original proposal that was presented called for the entire area to be zoned R-2. The neighborhood opposed that and reached. a compromise that called for the front three lots to be R-1 and the five rear lots to be R-2 with zero lot lines. He stated that was a provision of their compromise. The reason for that was they felt it increased the likelihood that, as the properties change hands over the years, there will be more owner-occupied units than if the lots did not have zero lot lines. Mr. Wellner stated he would like to speak against any stipulation forcing zerc lct line becasue that was not the intent of the compromise. In order to construct, it necessitates them getting two difference mortgages on the building which puts them in a different situation in terms of financing. He felt that when they want to sell a unit off, that is the time to consider zero lot line. Their compromise and understanding with the Mayor and City Counci_I was that a provision would be provided for zero lot line, but they would not be compelled to do it. The reason for the zero lot line was that with the financing and with the housing situation and economy, it makes it a more affordable unit. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman asked why Mr. Wellner would have to get two different mortgages. Mr. Wellner stated that at the time of construction, the minute they go with zero lot line, they have two separate units and, therefore, they would have two different deeds. He stated it was still his intent to hold some of these units for rental . He may choose, and it may be to his advantage, to get two different mortgages, and at that time he would apply for zero lot line. But, he did not want to be compelled to do so at the time of construction. Again, he stated that was not the intent of the agreement. Mr. Oquist stated that was also his understanding from the discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Larson stated Mr. Qureshi had assured the neighborhood there would be some provisions or the pro ect would not proceed. Those provisions were: (1) tuck-under garages; (2i minimum square footage; and (3) zero lot lines. As he recollected, it was not that the builder would have the option to apply for zero lot line at some future date, but that from the conception of the plat and upon its approval , there would be zero lot lines. Mr. Oquist stated it did not make sense to say there had to be zero lot lines, because then they might as well get the land resurveyed and have the lines put in on the original plat. Ms. Schnabel stated since the City Council members were the ones that worked with and created the agreement between Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty and the neighborhood, the Planning Commission was probably better off in not getting into this so deep that new problems surface. She stated it was probably better for the Planning Commission to just act on the preliminary plat,- as they have been instructed to do, knowing that this discussion will go on to - City Council . MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON P.S. #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #82-01, DOTY/WELLNER ADDITION, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELLNER: BEING A REPLAT OF THAT PART OF BLOCKS 8 AND 9, LOWELL ADDITION, LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, EXTENDED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 8, AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET, AND THAT PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, LOWELL ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET, TO BE DEVELOPED AS THREE R-1 LOTS (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS) AND FIVE R-2 LOTS (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS) GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI ST., N.E., ,EAST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 0 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated P.S. #82-01 would go to City Council on June 7. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #82-05, BY JOY ANDERSO Per Section 205. 5 4, 2, to allow the construction of a 24 ft. by24 t. detaed garage in CRP-2 zoning (flood plain) on Lots 11 , 12, 13, and 14, Block Xch, Riverview Heights, the same being 7921 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION BY MS. VAN D , SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #82-05 BY JOY AND ON. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL TING .AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated this is 'n the flood plain and under flood plain regula- tions, any structure built in the flood plain requires a special use permit. The existing dwelling is locate on Buffalo and Riverview Terrace. The petitioner wants to put in a 24 t. by 24 ft. garage located so the driveway comes off Buffalo St. This garage is allowed in a flood plain with the special use permit requirement as a accessory structure. Accessory structures do not have to meet the requirements or livable structures. The only things required for accessory structures are at the structure is not for human habitation, has both flood damage poten 'al and is permanently anchored to prevent flotation, and is flood proofed. e stated this garage meets all requirements as far as setback requirements and Staff has no opposition to the proposal . The petitioner, Joy Anderson, was in the audien e. Ms. Schnabel asked Ms. Anderson if the garage was tended for any use other than a garage. Ms. Anderson stated it was to be used only as a garage. MOTION BY AR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CLOSE THE P LIC HEARING ON SP #82-05 BY JOY ANDERSON. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY C NCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #82-05, BY JOY ANDERSON: PER SE ION 205.1574, 2, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. DETACHED ARAGE IN CRP-2 ZONING (FLOOD PLAIN) , ON LOTS 11, 12, 13, AND 14, BLOCK X, R R- VIEW HEIGHTS, THE SAME BEING 7921 RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E. CCCRICIL M& OF JUNE 7, 1982 3 stated it is estimated, with the construction of this facility, 79 new jo will be available. Mr. Inman stated it is intended to privately pla the bonds and the security of the mortgage will be a personal guarantee . Paschke. Mr. George Halvorson, Presi of First Corporate Services, Inc., stated it is located in the tax incremen strict. No other persons in the audience spok egarding the issuance of industrial revenue bands for this project. MWICN by Councilman Hamernik to close the public hear Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearng c d at 8:05 P. M. 3 PUBLIC HEAPJNG CN PRELII9INARY PS t82-01, DO Y/WEuIER ADDITIOPI, W. G. LWY AND GARY WELTIJE'ft: MXIOV by Councilman Hamernik to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearng. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:06 p. m. tlr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this hearing is on a residential plat generally located south of Misssissippi Street aqd east of the Burlinaton Northern Railroad right-of-way. He stated the property is to be developed as three R-1 or single family lots and five R-2 or double bungalow lots. Ilr. Flora stated there are not any explicit plans at this time, however, when you physically place a house on a lot, it may require some variances. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated when this plat was discussed with the neighboring residents, it was indicated that the ffbnt yard variances would be part of the plat to allow 30 feet in front instead of the required 35 feet. Councilman Hamernik asked if they have the exact location for the single family home. Mr. Flora stated they do not have specific site locations, however, with this plat, they are showing it is possible to construct certain types of structures which would satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood and still provide buildable sites. Councilman Hamernik stated he is not comfortable not knowing the actual location of the dwellings and thought they would have the information at this point. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated if the Council provides a stipulation in this plat approval that the front setbacks will be 30 feet, it will pretty well establish the location of the structures. Nr. Wellner stated the lots are set up to meet the square footage requirements so, basically, the locations of the structures would be determined by how the lot lines are drawn. He felt if they were going to change anything, it would be difficult. Mr. Wellner stated they don't have any specific plans as they don't know at this point who the builder will be in this plat. Councilman Schneider stated there was some discussion by the Planning Canmission regarding zero lot lines. Mr. Qureshi stated, originally, when the plat was submitted to the Planning Commission, it didn't include the zero lot lines. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed plat. O( WIL MEETING CF JUNE 7, 1982 PAGE 4 MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to close the public nearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:18 P. M. NEW BUSINESS: e, 4 CCNSI CN CF S=NG A PUBLIC HFARING FOR CHANGE 4D CHAPTER 211, PLATTING EMBLISHING SECTION 211.045 "ZERO U)T LINFS" FOR JULY 12, 982: MOTIOPI by Counc Fitzpatrick to set the public hearing for July 12, 1982. Seconded Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee ared the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Nee suggested is matter be referred to the Planning Commission and Community Development Commission for their convents. 5 RECEIVING PLANNING Cot ION KMYIFS OF MAY 18, 1982: VEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PER11IT, SP #82-05 e) A OCFISIDERATICCI OFA 2D ALM-1 CIETaICTION DETACHED GARAGE IN CRP-2 ZONING 7921 RIVERVID4, TERRACE, APY ANDERSON: Ur. Flora, Public Works Directo stated this request is for a special use permit to allow construction o a garage in the flood plain as an accessory structure. He state the requirements for an accessory structure is that it is not for habitation, permanently anchored to prevent floatation, and flood proof Mr. Flora stated the garage does m t this criteria and the Planning Cormission has reccmvPnded approval of is special use permit. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the unanimous reconnendation of the Planning Commission grant special use permit, SP #82-05 to allow construction of a detach ' garage in CRP-2 zoning. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a ice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimous 5B CCUSIDERATI(XI OF A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE P lIT, SP #82=06 TO ALLl AUMIATIC TELLER 11ACHIINE IN ENCLOSED IIDING 755 53RD AVENUE (TARGET PARKING LOT), OtIAL BATIK, KENYON BLUNT: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a requ t for a special _ use permit to allow the location of an automatic tell machine in an enclosed building in the Target parking lot. Mr. Flora stated Northwestern _ National Bank has requested is facility to serve their 6,000 customers in this area. He stated it 's etimated there would be about 160 transactions daily or about 5,000 per th. Mr. flora stated, in order to construct this facility, eight rking stalls would be removed frau the Target parking lot, however, the a is a suplus of parkirg and the code requirements would still be satisfied. Mr. Flora stated the area would be landscaped and have concrete curbing and they have their own security system connected with this facility. Mr. Weber, a planner representing Northwestern National Bank, stated they plan to change the configuration of the island to direct traffic to flow to the west. He also stated the location of this facility will be moved, as requested by the Planning Commission. THE MINUTES OF TO FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: _Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Hamernik, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 21, 1982: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING - JUNE 14, 1982 MOTION by Coucilman Bar e�T a to approve the minutes of the Continued Board of Review Meeting of June 14, 1982 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. NEW BUSINESS: FIRST READING OF AN OROINANCE AMENDING C[YU TER 603.11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CONCERNING THE SALE OF =XICATING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY: MOTION by Concilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance upon first reading. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL MEETING OAM 21, 1982 12 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL , PS #82-01, /WELLNER ADDITION, W. G. DOTY AND GARY WELINER: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this plat is located to the east of Satellite Lane and on the corner of Starlite Boulevard. Mr. Flora stated that, based on the concerns the Council had with the plat at the last meeting, there were some revisions of the lot lines to more easily identify them. He further stated, in conjunction with this plat approval, there are five variances, and outlined them as follows: (1) Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have variances for the lot width (2) Lots 3 and 5 have side yard variances if double garages from 5 feet to 3 feet (3) Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 have front yard variances from 35 feet to 30 feet (4) Lot 7 has a side yard (corner) variance from 35 feet to 13 feet (5) Lot 5 has a rear yard variance from 25 feet to 22 feet Mr. Flora stated the variances would be necessary to build the structures on the zero lot lines of the R-2 parcels. Councilman Hamernik stated there was some concern about the square footage of the structures. Mr. Flora stated he doesn't have the exact square footage, but the plans for the buildings submitted in Mr. Wellner' s original proposals would satisfy the R-2 requirements. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, asked if the concern is how the City would guarantee the developer would construct a certain size unit on these properties. Councilman Hamernik stated that is his concern and is also one of the stipulations of the Planning Commission who indicated the minimum square footage for each unit. Mr. Doty stated the size varies although they probably would be around 1,000 square feet or over. MOTION by Concilman Hamernik to approve the final plat, PS #82-01 , Doty/Wellner Addition with the folowing variances: (1) Variance of the lot widths on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; (2) Variance of the side yard, if double garage from 5 feet to 3 feet, on Lots 3 and 5; (3) Variance of the front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5; (4) Variance of the side yard (corner) setback from 35 feet to 13 feet on Lot 7; and (5) Variance of the rear yard set back from 25 feet to 22 feet on Lot 5. Further, that the proposed buildings, A and B, be followed, as presented to the City staff, as far as the size of the structures. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Doty thanked both Concilman Hamernik and Mr. Qureshi for all their time in working on this proposal to satisfy them as well as the neighboring Residents. STAFF REPORT Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date : June : 1 , 1993 Planning Commission Date City Council Date : June 21 , 1993 REQUEST Permit Number VAR #93-09 Applicant Walter Bauer; Bauer Construction Company Proposed Side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 4.5' , 5' , 6' , and 7' . Request Location 6420-6422 and 6430-6432 Starlite Circle N.E. SITE DATA Size Density Present Zoning R-2, Two Family Dwelling Present Land Use(s) Twinhomes Adjacent M-1 , Light Industrial to the North (RAO Mfg.) ; R-3, General Zoning Multiple Family Dwelling to the East; Burlington Northern Adjacent Land Use(s) Railroad tracks to the West; and R-1 , Single Family to the Sou h. Utilities Park Dedication Watershed District ANALYSIS Financial Implications Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan Compatibility with Adjacent Zoning and Uses Environmental Considerations RECOMMENDATION Staff See Staff Report Appeals Commission Planning Commission Author 2 Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 1 A. STATED HARDSHIP: The petitioner will be submitting a letter at the Appeals Commission meeting. B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request The petitioner is requesting side yard setback variances for two existing twin homes as follows: 1. Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 4 . 5 feet 2 . Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 5 feet 3 . Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 7 feet 4 . Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 6 feet The twin homes under construction contain three bedrooms, two baths, living room, dining room, and a family room. The units at 6420-6422 Starlite Circle are 1, 176 sq. ft. each, and the units at 6430-6432 Starlite Circle are 1, 224 sq. ft. each. Site The subject property is located on the Starlite Circle cul- de-sac. The property is zoned R-2 , Two-Family Dwelling. M- 1, Light Industrial zoning, is located to the north, and the site is occupied by RAO Manufacturing. There are three single family homes at the intersection of Starlite Circle and Satellite Lane. These parcels are zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. R-3 , General Multiple Family zoning, is located to the east, and the site is occupied by the Cherrywood Apartments. The Burlington Northern tracks are located to the west of the property. Background Gary Wellner and Gus Doty received plat approval for twin home lots in June 1982 . The property was also rezoned to R-2 , Two Family Dwelling, in September 1982 (date of ordinance publication) . The plat approval included a number of variances since the City at that time did not have a zero lot line ordinance to 2E Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 2 accommodate a twin home subdivision. The lot line in a twin home passes between the two units in the two family dwelling, and each lot can be purchased by a separate owner. The variances pertained to the lot width, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and the side yard setback for the twin home lots. The issue in this case in the side yard setback. A side yard setback variance from 5 feet to 3 feet was granted on the lot now described as Lot 3A and 3B for a double garage. Minutes of the meetings in 1982 are attached. The rezoning request spanned a two year timeframe. The neighborhood was opposed to the R-2 zoning. The developer submitted two types of plans during the rezoning and plat review. The difference between the Type A plan and the Type B plan was that the Type A plan included a double garage, and the Type B plan included a single garage. The plans do not indicate living area above the garages. Gary Wellner submitted a letter to the City on June 2 , 1983 , a year after the approval suggesting that "each unit will have a two- car garage with a bedroom above that area" . The twin homes at 6410-6412 and 6421-6423 have living areas above the garages; both sites are in conformance with the ordinance. After the 1982 approvals, Mr. Wellner indicated that he sold his interest to Mr. Doty. Mr. Doty has sub- sequently conveyed the subject properties to Mr. Bauer. Building Permit Review On February 25, 1993 , the City issued building permits for the subject twin home structures. The submitted surveys for each of the twin home clearly indicate a garage. There is no mention of the living area above the garage unless one reviews the building plans. While the garage location on each of the twin home lots meets the setback requirements, the existence of a living area on the second floor above the garage dictates the need for a variance to the 10 foot side yard setback. Analysis Section 205.08.03.D. (2) . (a) requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living area and side property lines. The public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to the possibility of fire and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around structures. 2F Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 3 The Appeals Commission has three options in reviewing these variance requests. Staff suggests that the Appeals Commission and City Council make four separate motions pertaining to each lot to clarify the action for each of the units. 1. Approve the variances as requested. 2 . Deny the variances and instruct the owner to redesign the units as necessary to meet the 10 foot setback requirement. 3 . Consider a modified variance request whereby a fire wall is constructed within each of the units to meet the 10 foot setback requirement. In three of the units, there would be a small encroachment into the 10 foot setback area from 8 inches to 1. 3 feet. Given the plat history and prior submittals and, in order to maintain a 20 foot separation between adjacent living areas, staff cannot recommend approval of the variances as proposed. If the variances are granted, the walls should be upgraded to a fire wall standard. Option two would require the owner to redesign the units so that the living area is not encroaching into the 10 foot setback. On Lots 3A and 3B, the roof system, plumbing, and electrical wiring have been installed. The foundation and framing of the first floor has been constructed on Lots 4A and 4B. There is more opportunity to redesign the units on this lot since the second floor has not been completed. Option three suggests that a fire wall be constructed in each of the units (see attached plans) . There are two alternatives within the option. The owner could construct a fire wall along a diagonal to parallel the 10 foot distance from the lot line, or a wall could be constructed to 90 degree angles to be more space efficient. In the case of Lot 3A, a one foot variance would be needed if constructed at the 90 degree angles. In the case of Lot 3B, there would only be an 8 inch encroachment. In the case of Lot 4A, walls could be constructed within the unit so that there would not be an encroachment. In the case of Lot 4B, there would be a 1. 3 foot encroachment. If option three is pursued, we suggest that the wall be constructed of a 5/8 inch gypsum board on the interior of the units, and also that a 5/8 inch gypsum board be placed on the interior of the existing wall. In that way, there are two separations in case of a fire to prevent the fire jumping from one unit to the next. It is also suggested 2C Staff Report VAR #93-090, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 4 that deed restrictions be filed to notify all future owners that the wall in question cannot be removed and is for fire safety purposes. The distance between the corner of the bedroom in 6420 to the wall of 6412 is 17 . 5 feet. The distance between the bedrooms in 6422 and 6430 is 14 . 5 feet. These distances are based on the building plans and surveys. Petitioner's Option The petitioner has indicated a willingness to construct a fire wall in the closet areas of each of the units but not within the bedroom. He further suggests that he be permitted to encroach two feet into the side yard setback in the closet using the section of the code that permits a "bay" to encroach no more than two feet. Drainage Gary Wellner, who owns the twin home at 6412 Starlite Circle, has indicated that a drainage problem exists from Lots 3A and 3B. Scott Erickson has inspected the property and is suggesting that a swale be constructed along the lot line for proper drainage. Drainage from Lot 3A and 3B must be designed properly so as to not adversely affect the property to the south. Recommendation variance #1, Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission adopt the following motion: The Appeals Commission recommends approval of a variance on Lot 3A with the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 9 feet for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 4 . 5 feet from the lot line. 2H Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 5 4 . The wall shall be lined with of a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. 6. The petitioner shall construct a swale along the south lot line to drain the runoff to the street, and not on the adjacent owner's property. Variance #2, Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission adopt the following motion: The Appeals Commission recommends approval of a variance on Lot 3B with the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 9 feet 4 inches for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 5 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. Variance #3, Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle Because the second floor of this structure has not been constructed, the Commission may either pursue option two, denying the variances and forcing a redesign of the unit, or option three where a fire wall is constructed within each of the units. 21 Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 6 With the fire wall option, the stipulations are: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . There is no living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 6 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. Variance #4, Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle If the fire wall option is recommended, the stipulations are: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 8 . 7 feet for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 7 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. 2J Staff Report VAR #93-09, 6420-22 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle Page 7 Appeals Commission Action The Appeals Commission on a 3 : 1 vote recommended denial of the side yard setback variance for the twin home located at 6420-6422 Starlite Circle N.E. The Appeals Commission on a unanimous voted recommended denial of the side yard setback variance request at 6430-6432 Starlite Circle N.E. 2K VAR #93-09 Walter Bauer ,HIS IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS ' O I THEY APPEAR THE ANOKA COUNTY T OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA SHOWN. ' Rf4 THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN- TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- FR/DL E Y ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. 539/5 7NN/M W B ,1\1'► 42 41 E.V4 CORNER IO ar J 11 C.IL rrkE +•z l�7 ✓11,,.. p,LL ' f'Y N -Yr .....•Fr rw •1u c j°ny PLACE l w / w r jZ 3 �� ' G M,yc155 i`r5 ,.3 r..J 12 +d • / W +% p'', i ., 1. a. �i ir, l Tn D p/Tl0 11 �/a�f';nI 1 p:w•- � sic�) i �rrw�,, .I �-;i- - s rc mel pr N f o A SYLVAN WILLS t ,)`, p Is.: 6 �, e- �F t9 ' T• /' s3 ze 4n Q q p4 T tF 28 s S T LUTE DANE 4TH r WAY `l.,r wE �'..7v( � 0r; # reJ �( fl� J it > v j4 co SYLVAN ,LANE 1/2 WAY r • e 'w'.`t a d �� ,^ u• P T e J 7 2 � , /� f' ,N• Go; =t: 40 '± i"a , i.JS VE ,, d s 3. 63 WAY VX - N.f -�> s+sr sc s J1 u I TRINITY- OR� i s. ssl. 1 RD WAY " ! ' h) e, n c +r,; � � • I F: s � ,. M; •y,, w r 7!, f� N5 4/ .4 J 7 t S • 2 + ( bJ N P .J F �q>.r•�� ? Tel _ _ _ � � « . s 10' 21/2 WAY 4 �VVLWAY ' w ( 'i ,n. r� w NIA*/c n u rs z/ z !P); - s/ rs , ..Kt p� 2�xJ pITl0� K ryO?ND - WAY <..> ..> Lp) inl C•D Po. iy �sJ r�9•'J ' `•s> ,?i�' :v •N) •.• •QTS ro s J r I '2' ,1y)J @Cs \ 1 N f I !„i RIVER EDGE r N IT b y n w R + w ti 61 1/2 WAY 420 �fi �ir>' (p> ch> ?'i• <Jri �.) e: I � U) F �)�• 'a _ i RIVER EDGE WAY i w« b _ COER .veto, SEC 15 R<ee.a+d P.et. w" n s: >r 2C LOCATION MAP � � �.� r� � WW yArim WAft . , , „�ecce♦,♦,♦`�,e,♦,♦ r MUCH ��..�....-., 4 �• ��ij: E�:�s� sem; . .• ' ►:`e e l►J �►.♦.r. e+70f4#• s ♦♦♦.. ►♦�<- ♦♦ • e♦�►♦♦♦ � � c�►�.osoe♦e♦e �Qia R7 �L7' � • - i . I goo" VAR #93-09 Walter Bauer FOR: W.F. B AU ER CONSTRUCTION' ,. CO. Q o � 9 6420-22 • i- rr �'� t I I .441 o� �► t-- Prop. 9- i r i Ti �� r"� t�.House / *0 oma. car. tir Prop. Ma ,, Houe/ Gar. ro 8 40 V °� DiQg.=70.33X4$=85.1 S�/ DENOTES PROPOSED ELEYA110N. GARAGE FLOOR = 4 /. ' DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. TOP OF BLOCK =/o -7 DENbTES HUI3 AT 11 FOOT OFFSET. LOWEST FLOOR = /0 •.5' lots 3A & 3B, D10 00TY/WE..ER ADDITION, Anoka County, Minnesot O Denotes Iron Mon. FBeorina Datum: Assumed Job No. Book- -hereby certify that this Is d true and correct representation of fit, " UD. I .survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the, p ration of all buildings, if any, thertbn,.ond all vluible snCraachm� ntq LAI.tlao Ll�illVdrT any, from or on said land. E, 0._RUD do SONS_ INC_ r-rwf"_r IV wful md 2N SITE PLAN • ,�a. �+ 4 �'r^ �: / � ...... ._.i-�. ��- VAR #93-09 Walter Bauer -. .� a. -br(; r Y,;'2r-• >r t'1 r+- i a x ya � G� r .X. 75 B7zT>ailY.+. t1n. rel,. � - :��,.,t•zxn` �j�Y antsy s-s • � :�'�'s"' . n� �3-^s��cr -.. �x , ) 53:11 '- S- 89 40'1511 E g(-a. _• }J $iA �y�.l rt u . I•-r ,�� ...1 t Of ter''u c;•r •�. �' M •� TU S. x 9a ` Prop. o House -P• s •� GAJ House, ..cD . QQ M >t Gar. �.'� t VPc+�l .[/ Prop. 7� House/ ��; .S�:,_.: / Gar. / ��,. o dr°a $+�• / %N/ ^.4Pro C House � • // Gar. / \ . 849.1 6430-32 cr 0 �cS? 1��_a.i•? .'_��YCIY'S7 C1�...�.E... .:Qu�z�-Ya1'7T' a� �,� S-a v-1-1 r#-e, lane i .;5teir..{.i ce. Blvd t *• i0g.=7Q.33X48=85.15'' PROPOSED ELEVATi0NS; ENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. GARAGE FLOOR = 851.1 ENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. TOP OF BLOCK = 851.5 D HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET. LOWEST FLOOR = 851.5 {s) ,b o is 4A�& �-B, Block. ,�.�a� ,TY/WELLER ADDITION, Anoka County, Minnesota O Deno on. Bearin Datum: Assumed - Jab No. Book—Pa e_ Dis certify that this is a true and correct representation of it. as. mum d $�N$, 1, if the boundaries of the above described land and of theLA)01Rv3YOR$ all buildings, if any, thereon, and all vicbie encroachments, in or on said land, E. G. RU de SO G � 0 LKXR4SrTON Avg. No, ,. �. �'1 I�Gi X Pm.N", MIh NEWTo day of w�• ' i9A3 By in r� Qr�o � -3�Z6 TRI.. Ift-586l M no Ra , No. - d° Oak 7.ris 2R SITE PLAN I _ it 1;)N11114 j II. ,�. I, i, I � � ,� +,I .�1. I!�I+ t I. '!j� I• pq G\ 14 P4 LL CYE Ah nol -till C9sy3A3y fol9 pll) laI � 913 1610, lml� `�I 1 -tYnal}do I i I �I ILI a,1 ; 1 VAR #93 9 — WalAer B 'uer 1-- dLV _ t _ . I C v i to rl t � a II _. 2X b % VAR #93-09 =- Walter Bauer o j 2X(a He, = / Posts (Y) RE: 3� = 4o a , Z i 11 RM 4�2 3 I o— G„ ;fir( . I r � LZ r 24; r ol I / 12 � 2.Z—p 2-0 24-0 This Plan Must 'LAN Be Maintained And 2T Accessible On The Construction Site i • 1 �f b• i .. .._ry� i n•..� VAR #69- -0 i Waltef-&& r o _ N I Ffi oA4,A'' B RM V, Z- 16.6. � \ N � f , 'c 3LT 84 ,449 Ale 2S �� ,�ptr� ..� a ,�'. a Bt !_ � �..r �� • �'�"''�, ''�,prar ,r • � i �:,`� .y l _ J � ; � - �*VAR #93-09 alter Bauer ll fl-tilLlJJ.C— I � 1 - j^ j �' ` � —:_s°+-- S.E.Q. 2;/tet.• � �— - .. 1 o�x P�AhJ Fl.)S. ofL I .,}-o •,mus e.t-F6La-;��.bs.�r:ra: t • f i - Y V; Cr 84 j Z4� - o 2P • ,5 • �V _� cr .r ��^�� h � i VAR #93-09 ( Walter Bauer L ti LL1 ! ti , i Y' 1 I rIP .............. R 1 � u 'IP :_^ �' -. �fi \ "'+i7,1a. u zafx "T f�-„� g.:...g�„�a,��t=e` '�`•+ •s t. ?� =r ., t ?.a - 2 ,f ' -• `' r' ” 4� ALA, 0 7K. nab .,•1 _.....t 4 VS IN. 014.x'1 ON PIPE -.. WESTERLY EXTENSION ' IA. IRON I N. LINE, SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 6 — (S.89e 43'3 "E.) V2 IN.O I „ S.89°4d 15 E. PIPE W./R.L.S. N 890 40 15 W.- 357.65 _ OWNER'S` 3795 CAP _ 61.04 �1 - +•- 119.00 �' T ~Y I IF— ` KNOW ALI 12.00 Y re+ ` �y, t 3 ., p /+V °O9 ( m ,.. Doty, Ir I Q6 p2, 6 CK g,696960 of land: >~ 17bvinhom Un f Hatt ction Tha w\ --' con 4A 48 SA eLFO\g I I lin s. 58 Lan �y6\Z9 h I th nt AnC 262 �e m 6A \ZS c 'I ... Have ca to the n, Q = m o26 I In witn 3B 0Exi tin inhl �ne da of /e 33•. '�y2° '�� Z a n u� 0 bb �. 69yyl��] Yv i °�o cin fy v;b ,h'h O �; .r`. f✓,'A `..• 53/2 vim, s� 4 1 y ey�ia0 ti\o0 �6��b M Gary A, Twirilio a Under C ruction P: Ji., 1 ?p D\ay l!YI- °6j CV STATE C N S20 ?4840 X030 �' P� I Z COUNTY : .. 3 _ 3A s 6 AO 0z e— y'' O a The for D-i8°58'31 •w�^ L 1656 - D �—�7� J7 (�T V}iv1 WWellnei N. 80' 1T 1 =16°58'5 / � / , -N.86°5935 E. N'o ttt--- (j)�l/l 2.06 N �..W 136.29 L=16.5 - I a o - h I —_; io / 1 1 -25°40 Sfi ° cv Il L-z2.al Ips In wits 20.00 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE .. �8 ys J ...-....' L=67.04 O fo O N 29 AND UTILITY EASEMENT /p this C6 I 4.14 02, .. L=76°4908" I ;'.'_ I 3 O - r• W. - 2914- q�"i J0 O tD I W. UNE, SYLVAN W.G. D, HILLS PLAT 8. 88°37'46i !$t• hj`q s j 7 I / Y_ 54.77 -- =36°42 OS' Home SAV-4a5 $F L=32.03 \`, / STARLITE SF Home �--y - STATE < 2 A :CIRCLE o52'53'45" I ' � I � I COUNTY R=13.00 1_• / ... 48• E \62 66 J=52°53 45 W w �, l:12.00 ; 10 1J The fo: 57 R = 13-00 r I m O I Presid, - N 77• L = 12.00M I m Q ..... -,� .-...... in Vj 50.00 -w) M I O �! b o � o ' 1 75.00 / $F H me , ? ' 44.49 -� eo.00 f9�y / $ I � \' S. 89. 45' 04" E.-199.49 1/2 IN DIA $HR�7EY N.o7°21'os'w.-3o.2s N t \ IRON PIPE E j�N. 03- 06' 59" E. Df40 :.::::....:.. ... 1 / .:.............. 30.06 170.24 I/2 IN. DIA.IRON- PIPE - ""•- • • - o�1C V2 IN. DIA. -_� W./R.L.S. 9066 CAP (PLATTED AS MERCURY DRIVE) ��pp wet IRON PIPE -- - N. 89° 57' 47" E. F I I • STATE COUNT' 1 ` � • �k F FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 3 Mayor Nee felt strongly that the stop sign issue deserves some review as to whether or not more stop signs are needed. He stated that he wanted the Public Works Department to conduct a review of the neighborhood, and that a larger area should be stud' d rather than one intersection. He stated that if stop signs a installed at every other corner on Third Street, the situatio may be worse on Second Street. He stated that the City would do study and see how this can be resolved. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she had the same situation in her neighborhood, and she obtained a petition from the residents. PETITION NO. 11-1993 FOR CONCRETE CURBS: Mrs. Weiser, 6876 Madison Street, sub ted a petition for concrete curb and upgrading of Seventh Stree She stated that over fifty percent of the residents are in fa r of this improvement at a cost of $8. 00 a front foot. She st ed that there are 24 properties involved, and sixteen were t home when the petition was circulated. They were all i favor of this improvement except for one. MOTION by Councilman B' lings to receive Petition No. 11-1993 . Seconded by Councilwom� Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS• 1. ORDINANCE"NO. 1014 UNDER SECTION 12 . 07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE VACATION REQUEST, SAV 93-01 BY MARK AND JEAN SCHWARTZ AND RANK AND VALLIE LABANDZ : MOTIO by Councilwoman Jorgenson to waive the second reading of Ordi nce No. 1014 and adopt it on the second reading and order pub ication. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, a voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 2 . RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 18, 1993 • A. VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #93-09 , BY WALTER BAUER, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BETWEEN THE LIVING AREA AND THE SIDE LOT LINE FROM 10 FEET TO 4 . 5 FEET AT 6420 STARLITE CIRCLE; 10 FEET TO 5 FEET AT 6422 STARLITE CIRCLE; 10 FEET TO 7 FEET AT 6430 STARLITE CIRCLE• AND 10 FEET TO 6 FEET AT 6432 STARLITE CIRCLE N.E. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the properties involved in the variances are two twin homes located in FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 4 the northwest part of Starlite Circle. She stated that the property is zoned R-2 and is known as the Doty-Wellner Addition. She stated that the variances are to reduce the setbacks between the living area and the side lot lines for the properties at 6420, 6422 , 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that this property was originally platted as a result of a lengthy rezoning and platting process initiated in 1980 and completed in 1982 . She stated that a number of variances were granted at this time for the twin home lots. She stated that the variances were granted because at that point in history the City did not have a zero lot line provision in the ordinance. She stated that the variances granted included a lot width variance for each of the twin home lots; a side yard variance for a garage from 5 feet to 3 feet; a front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet for four lots; and for the single family lots, there were some side yard and rear yard variances. Ms. Dacy stated that as part of the plat and rezoning process, the petitioners submitted two types of twin homes that were being contemplated for construction, Type A and Type B. She stated that the Type A plan included a double garage, and the Type B plan included a single garage but did not indicate living area above the garages. She stated that one of the petitioners, Mr. Wellner, currently owns the existing lot to the south of one of the properties at 6412 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that the variance requested is to reduce the side yard setback for the living area, and there is a different variance for each of the lots. She stated that the petitioner, Bauer Construction, has submitted two site plans for consideration. She stated that for the properties at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle, the garage is located in front of the living area. The construction is similar for the twin home at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that during the plan review process, the setbacks were reviewed to assure the garages met the variances granted in the 1980 ' s. She stated that the submitted surveys for each of the twin homes clearly indicate a garage. However, there is no mention of the living area above the garage unless one reviews the building plans. She stated that while the garage location on each of the twin home lots meets the setback requirements, the existence of a living area on the second floor above the garage dictates the need for a variance from the ten foot required side yard setback. Ms. Dacy stated that at 6420 Starlite Circle, there is 4 . 5 feet between the lot line and the corner of the living area; at 6422 Starlite Circle, there is 5 feet between the lot line and living area; at 6430 Starlite Circle, there is 7 feet between the living area and lot line; and at 6432 Starlite Circle, there is 6 feet between the living area to the lot line. She stated that the twin FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 5 homes at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle has the foundation installed, framed, exterior siding, as well as the electrical, roofing, and plumbing systems installed. She stated that the twin homes at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle have the foundation installed, framed, and a minimal amount of plumbing has been completed. She stated that when it was detected there was an error in construction, the contractor was asked to stop work immediately. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission considered this variance request on June 1, 1993 and had three options. She stated that they could approve the variances as requested; deny the variances and instruct the owner to redesign the units to meet the ten foot setback requirement; or consider a modified variance request where a fire wall is constructed within each of the units to meet the ten foot setback requirement. She stated that in thrge of the units there would be a small encroachment into the ten foot setback area ranging from 8 inches to 1. 3 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that if a fire wall is constructed at 90 degree angles so that the interior of the unit is physically separated that it meets the intent of the ordinance. She stated that it is recommended this fire wall be constructed of 5/8 inch gypsum board and the interior of the wall that has been constructed should also be lined with 5/8 inch gypsum board to produce a double stop to prevent spread of fire. Ms. Dacy stated that if the fire wall option is pursued, the Council would be granting variances from 10 feet to 9 feet at 6420 Starlite Circle; from 10 feet to 9.4 feet at 6422 Starlite Circle; at 6430 Starlite Circle there would be no encroachment because the fire wall would be in excess of ten feet away from the lot; and at 6432 Starlite Circle, the encroachment would be from 10 feet to 8 . 7 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the variances at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle on a 3 to 1 vote, and unanimously recommended denial of the variances at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. She stated that if variances are approved based on the fire wall option, the petitioner should be required to record deed restrictions stating the fire wall cannot be removed and is intended for safety purposes. Ms. Dacy stated that there is a drainage concern along the common lot line between 6420 and 6412 Starlite Circle. She stated on that particular variance, staff recommends a swale to appropriately drain off to the street. Councilman Billings stated that the drawings are somewhat accurate, but not completely precise because there actually would be about a six inch variance required at 6430 Starlite Circle. He stated that the City requires a ten foot setback from living space and a five foot setback for garages. He stated that a garage can be located within five feet of the lot line, and a home can be located FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 6 within ten feet of the lot line. He stated that homes built with tuck-under garages have the entire home and garage located within the ten foot setback. He stated that there are a number of homes, typically in the Innsbruck area, where the home is built less than ten feet from the property line. There is space above the garage, but it is not living space. He stated that the outside wall of these buildings are straight up and down and less than ten feet from the property line but with no living area above the garage. This is essentially what staff is recommending with the fire wall in this particular instance. Councilman Billings stated that by providing the fire wall option, these twin homes would look similar to other twin homes in the area. He stated that these homes are built relatively close to the property line which is the result of the variances granted by the City in 1982 to Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty. Councilman Billings stated that there were a number of persons who testified at the Appeals Commission meeting that they did not want twin homes on those sites. He stated that this property is already zoned R-2 which means twin homes or double bungalows are permitted on these lots. He stated, therefore, that this is not the issue this evening. Councilman Billings stated that the issue before the Council is the living space inside the building. He stated that in 1982, the Council chose to grant a number of variances to most of the lots in this particular plat. He stated that Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty were able to convince a prior City Council that there was a hardship that necessitated a variance. He stated that he is not exactly sure what the hardships were but probably because of the odd shape of the lots. He asked if it would be reasonable to assume that whatever hardships existed in 1982 would also be true today. Ms. Dacy stated that the same conditions apply today which is the unusual shape of the lot. Councilman Billings stated that, essentially, nothing has really changed in regard to the lots since 1982 . He stated that he visited the site, and several neighbors approached him. Their primary concern was that they really did not want twin homes on the site. He stated that when he advised them this was not the issue before the Council, and the Council could not prevent the petitioner from constructing twin homes, they seemed disappointed. He stated that they pointed out that there is very little landscaping in the front of the two twin homes that already exist. He stated that he would like to know if the developer would be willing to install landscaping between the driveways to improve the appearance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21 1993 PAGE 7 Councilman Billings stated that he has tried to determine what kind of variances he felt were reasonable had the petitioner applied for the variances prior to any building being done on the site. He stated that it seems the recommendation from staff as to fire walls makes sense in relation to other developments in the City and in terms of the building codes and zoning. He stated that the other question is if those fire walls should be less than the ninety degree angles. He stated that in several other cases in the City, one on McKinley and one on North Danube, there were approvals for variances for living space that would be six feet away from the property line. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if a drainage plan has been submitted. Ms. Dacy stated that no drainage plan was submitted, and in this particular instance, it would not be required. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked about fire walls in the homes where variances were granted. Ms. Dacy stated that the variances granted for the properties on McKinley and North Danube were within six feet of the property line. A fire wall is not required by the Uniform Building Code until a structure is within three feet. She stated that what staff is recommending is in excess of the code. Mr. LeVander, attorney representing Bauer Construction, stated that since Councilman Billings has described the history and justification for the variances, they probably would have been granted if the petitioner had come in before construction began. He stated that variances were granted to Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty some time ago for three feet from the garages. He stated that it is simply the variances for the living space which is now a problem. Mr. LeVander stated that the initial variances were modified quite substantially. He stated that he did not think what is proposed is substantially different than what Mr. Wellner had submitted when he suggested in his letter to the City on June 2 , 1983 that "each unit will have a two-car garage with a bedroom above that area. " He felt that the variances would solve the problem, and they would install fire walls to avoid the spread of fire. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the original variance granted in 1982 did not allow for living space above the garage. She stated that the City received a letter from Mr. Wellner a year later which noted his intent to provide living space above the garage. Councilman Billings asked if Mr. Bauer would be willing to install plantings to improve the appearance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 8 Mr. Bauer stated that he would not have a problem with the landscaping. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Bauer if his company constructed buildings to maintain ownership and rent them or if they build and sell the units. Mr. Bauer stated that they maintain and keep units for rental, as well as build and sell. He stated that if anyone wished to purchase one of the units it could be sold. Mr. LeVander stated that the deed restrictions referred to by staff would also be acceptable. Mr. Wellner, owner of property at 6412 , 6421, and 6423 Starlite Circle, stated that to give some history on these properties, the two car garages are a result of a compromise with the City because the neighbors raised concerns about parking. He stated that this was agreed upon by the City and the Council person at that time, Ed Hamernik. He stated that the plans were called A and B. Plan B was a single car garage, and Plan A came about in order to get final approval of the plat. He stated that the buildings had to be set back farther in order to have the garages located in front. He stated that the variances were granted after long, detailed discussions. He stated that he felt it was a mistake that Lot 4 is in preliminary construction. Mr. Wellner stated that with respect to the letter referred to by Mr. LeVander regarding living space above the garages, he is not sure of the context of the letter or that it was written by him. He stated that this probably has to do with the present buildings he owns and not with these lots in question. He stated that he is not sure the letter he submitted was in reference to these lots. Mr. Wellner stated that the drainage problem on Lot 3 is very serious. He stated that Mr. Bauer chose to elevate the building, and there is a 3 .4 foot setback from the corner of the garage to the property line. He also has to install a three foot sidewalk along the garage. He stated that Mr. Bauer chose to change the grade, and he could have a drainage problem which could make the lower level unlivable. He stated that this particular lot drains directly on to his lot. This has to be dealt with and is a severe problem. Mr. Wellner stated that if the variances are granted with the fire wall, he suggested that at no time could anyone come back to the Council and petition for that area to be living space. Mayor Nee stated that he recalls the discussion about the garages and wanting to get cars off the street. He stated that as he looks back now, the buildings are probably too large for the site. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 9 Mr. Wellner felt that Lot 5 had to be included in the Council's deliberations. He stated"that the drainage problem created by the building at 6420 Starlite Circle better be dealt with in some fashion. He stated that he is not interested in donating any land to someone who elevates that building. Mr. Bauer stated that he hears what Mr. Wellner is saying; however, the garage floor is twelve inches above his garage floor. He stated that the cul-de-sac rises six inches above his building. He felt that the drainage could be handled. He stated that water in the rear of the building will drain to the north. He stated that he would have to deal with the water only on the south side, and this could be accomplished. Councilman Billings stated that Mr. Wellner has mentioned Lot 5. He stated that the property owner of this lot has not requested any variances, and a request has to be before the Council before any action can be taken. He stated that he would assume if the property owner for Lot 5 did request variances, and circumstances being similar to what they are on the other lots, the variances would be granted if the petitioner felt they were needed. He stated that in respond to Mr. Wellner's remark, it is his opinion the City cannot take away a person's right to make a request for a variance. Councilman Billings stated that in terms of the drainage, it is his understanding the drainage problem to which Mr. Wellner refers is a by-product of two elements; one being the elevation of the home being constructed at 6420 Starlite Circle and the other being the closeness of the building to Mr. Wellner' s property. He stated that the garage being 3 or 3-1/2 feet from the property line is a direct result of the variance granted to Mr. Wellner in 1982 . He stated that the living space above the garage makes no difference, as the garage is still that close to the property line as a result of the variance granted in 1982 to Mr. Wellner. He stated that the drainage is something Mr. Bauer needs to address in terms of his relationship with Mr. Wellner, but he does not think it is a prime factor for the variance. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if a drainage plan is required when someone adds fill to a property which may cause a drainage problem to either neighbor. Ms. Dacy stated that for a typical home or twin home a drainage plan would not be required. She stated that nothing has been submitted to staff which would lead them to believe there is a drainage issue involved. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if the City was aware that fill was being brought in for this property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 10 Mr. Wellner stated that the drainage on that particular lot was below the original elevation. He stated that when you look at the topography, there is a difference in elevation where this building is being built and the building he owns on the east side. He stated that he had the building constructed on the original elevation and did not have a problem. He stated that the elevation was created by Mr. Bauer's choice of raising the building. He stated that he did not believe Mr. Bauer brought in fill but bermed behind his property. He stated that he did not know why Mr. Bauer chose to elevate the building and create the drainage problem. Councilman Billings stated that the drainage problem is not connected to these variances but the elements of the existing elevation and the close proximity to the property line is. Mr. Wellner stated that he would not dispute this fact, and the setbacks did not cause the problem with the drainage. It was the elevation of the building. Mr. Bauer stated that the elevation is twelve inches higher than the property to the south, and the reason he went with this elevation is the next lot at 6430 Starlite Circle rises again. He stated that the lot might have been lower than Mr. Wellner's, but Mr. Wellner's lot was elevated somewhat. He stated that this building and the adjacent building were built a little higher in order to make it look better. He stated that the drainage problem can be handled. He stated that they probably will need to make a different sidewalk with a step down off the driveway to the sidewalk. He stated that he would not drain any water on Mr. Wellner' s property. MOTION by Councilman Billings to grant Variance Request, VAR #93-09, with the fire wall option, subject to the following stipulations: (1) a diagonal wall is to be constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or (2) if a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion similar to what is indicated in the attached plans, the variance for Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle would be from the required 10 feet to 7. 25 feet; for Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7. 25 feet; for Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle from the required 10 feet to 9 feet; and for Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle from the required 10 feet to 7 . 25 feet for a living area encroachments; (3) this variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structures that are located less than 10 feet from the lot line and, further, that there are prior variances that have been issued to these lots; (4) the wall surface of the fire wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls; (5) the petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes; and (6) the petitioner will work with staff to specify and plant 0 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 11 appropriate plantings that will survive between the driveways of the individual twin homes. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if there was anything that could be done to have Mr. Bauer and Mr. Wellner work together towards the drainage plan. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that he heard Mr. Bauer say that he felt he could resolve the drainage problem. He stated that if he is not successful and there is a problem or some damages to Mr. Wellner's property, Mr. Bauer may have some civil liability. He felt that Mr. Bauer was aware of the concern. He stated that he did not know if there is anything the City can do to require the cooperation of the two persons. He assumes they would try to work out a mutual agreement. He stated that if there is a problem, the question is if one of the owners developed the property in an unreasonable fashion. Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that it may be prudent to attach another stipulation to include a drainage plan to show the drainage of the property to make sure it would not affect Mr. Wellner's property. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to add stipulation No. 7 as follows: (7) that a drainage plan be provided to staff prior to July 1, 1993 on the parcel at 6420 Starlite Circle. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3 . RECEIVE ITEMS FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1993 : A. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR 93-10 BY MICHAE ND JENNIFER MILLIGAN TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK CORNER LOT FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONST TION OF A THREE-CAR GARAGE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 392 66 AVENUE N.E. : Ms. Dacy, Community Development D' ector, stated that this is a request to reduce the side y setback on a corner lot from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow onstruction of a three car garage. She stated that the Appe Commission recommended a 17-1/2 foot setback rather than a foot setback with four stipulations which she outlined. MOTION by Co cilman Billings to concur with the unanimous recommendat ' n of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, AR #93-10, with the following stipulations: (1) replac ent of the existing driveway curb cut with B618 concrete curb and gutter; (2) removal of the existing driveway; (3) # , , 0 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21 1993 PAGE 12 conversion of the existing garage to living area within 60 dads of completion of the accessory structure; and (4) installation of a hardsurface driveway for the new garage by July 1, 1994. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-11, BY TOP TOOL COMPANY, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 100 FEET TO 90 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL ADDITION GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7615 BAKER STREET N.E. : Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this is a request to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 90 feet to allow the construction of a small addition to be used as an entry vestibule. She stated that this would improve the energy efficiency of this area. She stated that the petitioner is proposing to add additional parking in front of the building by increasing the number of spaces from f;ir to eight. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to grant Variance Request, VAR #93-11, with the following stipulation: (1) the petitioner shall provide a landscape plan w 'ich provides screening for the parking lot along Baker Street E. prior to the issuance of a building permit. Screening sh 11 be provided by either a three foot berm, hedge, or combination thereof. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanim7ROM ly NUTES4. RECEIVE THE MITHE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1993 : MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1993 . Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgen on. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i 5. RECEIVE THB MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9 1993 : A. SPECIAL SE PERMIT REQUEST, SP 93-08 BY SAM'S AUTO BUYING PROGRAM/, TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE AGENCIES SELLING OR DISPLAYING NEW D OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8150 NIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. : Ms. DacCommunity Development Director, stated that this is a request eques for a special use permit by Sam's Auto Buying Program to allow,/,the sale of cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats and camp Irs. She stated that the property is located in the northwest cor er of 81st Avenue and zoned C-3. She stated that Sam's Auto Bu ing Program is affiliated with Sam's Wholesale Club, but it is a separate corporate entity. She stated that they work with area dealers in order to provide specific automobile prices which are Arm CITY OF FRl DLLY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER •6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432•(612)571-3450• FAX(612)571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE June 28, 1993 Walter Bauer 4324 Lake Point Court Shoreview, MN 55126 Dear Mr. Bauer: On June 21, 1993, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR #93-09, to reduce the setback between the living area and the side lot line on: A. Lot 3A (6420 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7 .25 feet. B. Lot 3B (6422 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7.25 feet. C. Lot 4A (6430 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 9 feet. D. Lot 4B (6432 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7.25 feet. This approval is to allow the construction of two new two-family dwellings, contingent upon the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is to be constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or 2. If a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion similar to what is indicated in the attached plans, the variance for Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle, would be from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet; for Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7. 25 feet; for Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 9 feet; and for Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7. 25 feet for a living area encroachment. 3. This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure that are located less than 10 feet from the lot line and, further, that there are prior variances that have been issued to these lots. Walter Bauer, VAR #93-09 June 28, 1993 Page 2 4. The wall surface of the fire wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. 6. The petitioner will work with staff to specify and plant appropriate plantings that will survive between the driveways of the individual twin homes. 7. A drainage plan be provided to staff prior to July 1, 1993 on the parcel at 6420 Starlite Circle. You have one year from the date of City Council action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AICP Community Development Director BD/dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 12, 1993. Concur with action taken ComossION APPLICAMON REVIEW FILE NUMBER FILE DATE MEETING DATE FILE DESCRIPTION v'�R 093-09 CITYOF ?3 5-6-93 5-18-93 6420-6422 StarliteCircle FM DLEY ; 9;z- COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND RETURN TO PLANNING DEPT. '7O*ARB D. COMMENTS 9MICH,ELE M. e Stt Jc�� c1�,�c� -S-/2-93 rest.-✓j SCOTT E. 00, ❑ JOHN F. ❑ CLYDE W. LYDE M. LEON M. ❑ JIM H. ❑ CHUCK M. VAR #93-09 6420 - 6430 Starlite Circ*-- N.E. Mailed 5/7/93 MAILING LIST Walter Bauer Levy Powell Diane Savage 4324 Lake Point Court 6410 Starlite Circle N.E. 567 Rice Creek Terrace St. Paul, MN 55126 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, 1E 55432 RAO Manufacturing G. Wehner or Resident City Council 200 Mississippi Street N.E. 6412 Starlite Circle N.E. City Manager Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Daniel Brawn Resident Gary Wellner 115 Satellite Lane N.E. 6420 Starlite Circle N.E. 8457 Riverview Lane N. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Resident Resident 6432 Starlite Circle N.E. 6422 Starlite Circle N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 G. Wellner S 0 - k""L Resident 6379 University Ave. N.E. 6430 Starlite Circle N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 G. -Kellner or Resident Burlington Northern Railroad 6423 Starlite Circle N.E. 176 - 5th Street East Fridley, MN 55432 St. Paul, M 55101 G. Wellner or Resident Bradley Stewart 6421 Starlite Circle N.E. 6390 Starlite Boulevard N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Eric Corer Vincent Investnent Co. , Inc. 101 Satellite Lane N.E. 6390 Starlite Boulevard N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Sylvester Maciej Fred Bender 6400 Starlite Circle N.E. 100 Satellite Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 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, May 18, 1993 , at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of variance request, VAR #93-09, by the City of Fridley: Per section 205. 08. 03 .D. (2) . (a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the setback between the living area and the side lot line from 10 feet to 3 .45 feet on Lot 3A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition, the same being 6420 Starlite Circle, from 10 feet to 4 . 15 feet on Lot 3B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition, the same being 6422 Starlite Circle, from 10 feet to 5. 31 feet on Lot 4B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition, the same being 6432 Starlite Circle, and from 10 feet to 5.96 feet on Lot 4A, Block 1, Doty/ Wellner Addition, the same being 6430 Starlite Circle, to allow the construction of two new two-family dwellings. 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 May 11, 1993 . MEMORANDUM TO: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director PW93-179 FROM: Scott Erickson, Asst Public Works Director) DATE: May 12, 1993 SUBJECT: 6420 - 6422 Starlite Circle On May 5, 1993, 1 performed a field inspection of the above referenced property to verify potential drainage problems relative to this site and the neighboring property to the south. It appears that the rear lots of 6420-6422 drain to the neighboring property and pond on the back of this lot. With minimal grading, the drainage from this area could be routed to the street via a small grassed swale. If you have any questions regarding this information, let me know. SE:cz C1-YOF FMDLLY 2KK SYLVESTER S. MACIEJ 6400 Starlite Circle Fridley, MN 55432 May 12, 1993 Barbara Dacy City of Fridley Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Barbara : In regards to the consideration of variance request, VAR #93-09, by the City of Fridley, I am strongly for following the Fridley Zoning Code by keeping the setback between the living area and the side lot line at 10 feet on Lot 3A, Block 1; Lot 3B, Block 1; Lot 4B, Block 1; and Lot 4A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Additions. After all , why set specific city building codes if not everyone has to abide by them? I am not able to attend the May 18, 1993, Public Hearing due to previous commitments, but I hope that this letter stating my vote on the consideration will be heard. Should you need to contact me for any reason regarding this variance request, my phone number is 572-0686. Sincerely, Sylvester S. Maciej 6400 Starlite Circle Fridley, MN 55432 2LL BAUER CONSTRUCTION 6124830518 P. O1 • Hcmg^e�ga fires es Harr*3wlr.4 cns W. F. SAU92 CONSTRucnaN Co. I=West Cvury RGG� Srict$vi9w, %T1 50'25 43:,44 Otsaiay Nome 7;9.1143 CAT 'ZHE :LLCwz G / PA 4S (PLUS THE wVM By is 483-30-5-71 :CLQ aAx IS 6124830518 B AUER CONSTRUCTION 4830518 p. 02 Y, N \F E CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1993 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the May 18, 1993 , meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Cathy Smith, Carol Beaulieu Members Absent: None Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Dan Sampson, 6209 Baker Avenue N.E. Brad Dunham, 1427 North Danube Road John & Janet Wozniak, 180 Liberty Street APPROVAL OF MAY 4 1993 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the May 4, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-09 BY WALTER BAUER• Per section 205. 08 . 03 .D. (2) . (a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the side yard setback between the living area and the side lot lines addressed as 6420-6422 and 6430-32 Starlite Circle, Doty/Wellner Addition, to allow the construction of two new two-family dwellings as follows: a. Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 4 . 5 feet b. Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 5 feet C. Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 7 feet d. Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 6 feet Ms. Savage stated the Commission has received a notification from the petitioner, Walter Bauer, requesting that this variance request APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1993 PAGE 2 be tabled until the June 1, 1993, meeting to give him more time to evaluate the issues involved. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to table variance request, VAR #93-08, by Walter Bauer. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2 . CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-06, BY DAN SAMPSON: Per Section 205. 07. 03 .D. (2) . (c) . ( (3) ) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a three-car garage on Lot 1, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace 2nd Addition, the same being 392 - 66th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Baker Avenue and West Moore Lake Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There is C-3, General Shopping District, to the east, and R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to the south. St. Philip's Lutheran Church is located directly south of the subject parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting two variances: 1. To reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 9.5 feet; 2 . To reduce the side corner setback from 17 . 5 feet to 7 feet. Ms. McPherson stated a single family dwelling unit with an attached single car garage is located on the property. The petitioner is proposing that the single car garage be converted to living space. The required setback between living area and a side lot line is 10 feet. The petitioner is requesting a variance for one-half foot, which will not adversely impact the distance between the two dwelling units. The dwelling to the north appears to be located at the 10 foot setback requirement. Ms. McPherson stated that if the variance is granted, the petitioner will be required to remove the existing driveway and to replace the existing curb cut with B-618 curb and gutter along Baker Avenue. y CITY OF FRIDLEY� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the June 1, 1993, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kue le, Ken Vos, Cathy Smith Members Absent: Carol Beaulieu Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherso Planning Assistant Steve Zarakski, . F. Bauer Construction Walter F. Baia , W. F. Bauer Construction Hap LeVande , W. F. Bauer Construction Elizabeth raham, Top Tool Company Al Abra m, Top Tool Company Levy P ell, 6410 Starlite Circle NE Gary ellner, 6412 Starlite Circle NE Mi ael Milligan, 392 - 66th Avenue NE J nnifer Milligan, 392 - 66th Avenue NE Jim Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue NE Janet Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue NE Pat and Fred Bender, 100 Satellite Lane NE Joy Ecker Peka, 6380 Starlite Blvd. NE APPROVAL O /MAY 18 1993 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION y Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the May , 1993 , Appeals Commission minutes as written. U N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-09 , BY WALTER BAUER• Per Section 205. 08. 03 .D. (2) . (a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the side yard setback between the living area and the side lot lines addressed as 6420-6422 and 6430-6432 Starlite Circle, Doty/Wellner Addition, to allow the construction of two new two-family dwellings as follows: a. Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 4 .5 feet 2Y APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 2 b. Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 5 feet C. Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 7 feet d. Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle, 10 feet to 6 feet MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to remove Variance Request, VAR #93-09, from the table and open the public hearing at 7 : 33 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the property is located on Starlite Circle at the end of the cul-de-sac just north of Starlite Drive. To the north of the property is zoned M-1, RAO Manufacturing. Mississippi Street is located to the north. To the west of the property is the Burlington-Northern Railroad tracks. To ,the south of the property is single family zoning and homes. To the east of the property is the Cherrywood Apartments, R-3 zoning. Ms. Dacy stated, in her presentation, she will provide the history of the property, the request before the Appeals Commission, and the staff recommendation. Ms. Dacy stated the original Doty/Wellner plat was completed in 1982 . The plat culminated approximately a two-year process for this area. The petitioners at that time requested a subdivision of the property into twin home lots and also petitioning re-zoning from industrial/commercial to residential. After a number of meetings, three lots on the southern part of the plat were zoned R-1 and are now occupied by single family homes. The remainder was re-zoned to permit "zero" lot line twinhomes. At that time, the concept of zero lot line twinhomes was just making its way into the market and many communities like Fridley did not have a zero lot line process in the subdivision ordinance. In order to accommodate this request during the plat process, the Council at that time granted a number of variances to reduce the lot width from the typical single family dwelling lot width to accommodate the lot width for a twinhome. Key to this case is that one of the variances that were granted was a side yard setback variance for a garage from 5 feet to 3 feet on the lot known as Lot 3 . There are also front yard variance requests granted and rear yard variance requests granted. Also during that process, the petitioner at that time had submitted two typical twinhome proposals that were going to be constructed on the property. Ms. Dacy showed a drawing which is similar to existing twinhomes that are now on the property. The proposed twinhomes have a two-car garage in front of each unit with living area in the back of the garage. The other drawing submitted during the review process 2Z • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 3 shows a one-car garage in front of the twinhome unit. The existing twinhomes constructed to date have two-car garages. Ms. Dacy stated the request before the Commission concerns two twinhomes currently being constructed. She referred earlier to the three single family homes. What happened with the current request is that two certificate of surveys, one for each twinhome, was submitted along with the required number of building plans. For 6420-6422 Starlite Circle, the certificate of survey indicates the garage being in front of the proposed living area and the same is the case for 6430-6432 Starlite Circle. When the certificate of surveys were reviewed for compliance with the variance setback on Lot 3 from 5 feet to 3 feet, the survey did match that. Unfortunately, what was not caught is that the inspector looking at the building plans did not determine until after the permit was issued that there indeed is living area over the garage. As you know, the Code requirement says that living areas must be 10 feet away from the side lot line and not 5 feet. This was brought to our attention by the homeowner to the south, Mr. Gary Wellner. After that time, we contacted the petitioner, W. F. Bauer Construction, to halt work and they have done so. At this time, the twinhome at 6420-6422 has been framed, and the electrical, plumbing and roof have also been completed. The status of construction on 6430-6432 is that the framing has been completed on the first floor only, rough plumbing is done, but the second floor has not been constructed. The request tonight reflects a r variance request from the 10 foot side yard living area requirement to the edge of the livable space on each of the four units as they exist today. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission has three options to make a recommendation to the City Council. The first option is to approve the variances as presented. The Commission must determine that a hardship exists and that the variances are not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff cannot recommend approval of the variances as presented based on the history of this particular plat process and the fact that we don't believe a hardship exists. The intent of the 10 foot side yard setback is to maintain adequate area between living units for fire safety. Ms. Dacy stated the second option would be to deny the variances as requested and force a re-design and re-construction of the twinhomes. While that has obvious financial consequences, that issue is not for the Appeals Commission to decide tonight. That is a matter that may have to be adjudicated or be determined by the insurance company. The current distances between the two living areas is 17. 5 feet between the existing north side of the unit at 6412 and the south side of 6420 and there is 14 .5 feet between the two twinhomes that are under construction. The petitioner was going to verify with his surveyor whether this determination is correct. 2AA • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1 1993 PAGE 4 Ms. Dacy stated the third option is to approve a modified request where a fire wall is constructed within the unit to prevent habitable living space to be created. For each of the units, staff is suggesting the construction of a fire wall. A fire wall could be constructed on the diagonal at exactly 10 feet or construct a file wall at 90 degree angles in such a fashion to retain a logical layout in the bedrooms. These options would create dead space. Staff recommends a fire wall be constructed to a one-hour rating of 5/8 inch gypsum board and another 5/8 gypsum board on the interior of the exterior wall so essentially there are two fire stops between the two living areas. Staff also suggest that, if this option is pursued, that the owner record deed restrictions alerting potential owners that this wall cannot be removed. With the fire wall option, there are portions of the unit that would encroach into the setback because of the angle of the lot line. Ms. Dacy stated there are essentially four lots that need action. The first is Lot 3A, which is the southerly most of the twinhome properties at 6420 and is adjacent to the existing twinhome. Again, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission approve a modified variance with the fire wall option. If the Commission recommends approval of the fire wall option, what we recommend is that it be constructed in conformance with the plans in the staff report, that the walls be lined with 5/8 gypsum board on both the interior and exterior walls, that the deed restrictions be recorded, and finally to correct the drainage problem and construct a swale to the street or construct some other means to handle the runoff from the property. Ms. Dacy stated, for Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, the same recommendation for the fire wall option with the same type of stipulations for the gypsum board and deed restrictions is proposed. Ms. Dacy stated, for Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite, because only the first floor is framed, the Commission can consider denying the variance or approving a modified variance using the fire wall option and stipulations. The same is true of Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that she mentioned in the report that the petitioner has alternative suggestions for interior redesign of the unit which he will present. Ms. Savage asked why this request had been previously tabled. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner wanted more time to review their legal options and to prepare in more detail. Ms. Smith asked if the existing twinhome to the south had living area over the garage. 2BB f w . • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1 1993 PAGE 5 Ms. Dacy stated yes, it does but it meets the 10 foot side yard requirement. This twinhome meets the requirements as does the existing twinhome across the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any options for putting in a fire wall other than the diagonal wall, such as just using the outside wall for a fire wall on the exterior and interior to meet the fire code. Ms. Dacy stated this is an option. Dr. Vos stated Ms. Dacy had mentioned the area affected by the construction of a fire wall would create dead space. Can this space be used for storage? Ms. Dacy stated she would recommend it not be used for storage. It should be dead air space. Ms. Savage asked if there was a preference according to staff as to the design of the interior fire wall. Ms. Dacy stated no. Ms. Savage asked why staff chose the option of a fire wall. Ms. Dacy stated this was done to try to enforce the Code. Staff devised an option that would meet the 10 foot setback requirement. Mr. Hap LeVander, an attorney representing the petitioner, stated the request for a continuance was requested because, at the point when this first came up, it was sudden and Mr. Bauer did not have a chance to consider the construction options that might be available. He asked staff for additional time to review where he was with this project and perhaps some up with something that would be acceptable and the variances not be as initially suggested. Staff has accurately given the history of the matter and has described where we are with reference to this project. Mr. Bauer did receive a building permit from the building inspector before construction began. The survey showed where the properties were and where the houses and garages were and also showed on the application there would be living areas above the garages. The permit was issued and Mr. Bauer began construction shortly after that. He would also emphasize that on Lots 3A and 3B, 6420 and 6422 , the construction is already will progressed. On Lots 4A and 4B, the first story is done but the second story is not. Mr. Bauer would to suggest as an alternative is a further modification that he thought would allow the homes to be built and the bedrooms not built on a bias with a fire wall. It makes more sense for the interior fire wall to be on a 90 degree angle. In the walk-in closet area, the suggested diagonal line does not present the same 2CC a • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 6 problem as in the second bedroom, but they would like to avoid having a diagonal line run through the bedroom areas. Part of the ordinance allows bay areas of up to 8 feet on the side lot in the case where you have a cantilever where the structure itself is 10 feet away from the lot line on the first level but the house or the living area can extend two into that cantilever on the second level. This is part of the ordinance. If using that as a point of reference, they have a suggestion that they think would make the solution to this problem comfortable for all sides. What they propose is to modify staff's recommendation to provide an extra foot to the second bedroom and this would be tolerated in the bay area concept that is part of the ordinance. The walk-in closet would have a fire wall constructed on the diagonal line at 10 feet. The request for the other three lots would be basically the same. This option would have the full 10 feet of compliance other than in the one bedroom of each unit. The other provisions that staff are recommending for the construction of a fire wall and that the deed have restrictions are acceptable. To me, these modifications would go a long way to settle the problem and work our way out of a difficult situation. Ms. Smith asked that they are in agreement that all four units there would be a double fire wall. Mr. LeVander stated yes. Dr. Vos asked what Mr. LeVander felt was the hardship. Mr. LeVander stated the hardship is, if you live by the 10 foot setback, they would have to move buildings. The foundations are in, construction has begun. Relocating the buildings further to the rear of the lot would be very difficult financially. Mr. Bauer stated they are considerably into the building construction. 6420 and 6422 are well into construction and 90% sided. The other part of it is to do anything that would lose the one bedroom and have a one bedroom unit. It would have considerable cost. Ms. Savage stated originally the petitioner did not think a variance was required. Mr. Bauer stated this was true. Where they did not comply was realizing the second story had to be 10 feet away. Along with that, the certificate of survey, also submitted were two sets of plans for the building. We did not realize we were in violation of the Code. Ms. Smith asked if there was any way of knowing if this existed. Ms. Dacy stated yes. The building plans are quite clear that there 2DD APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1 1993 PAGE 7 was living space above the garage. Dr. Vos stated, on Lots 4A and 4B, the construction is not as far. There were not options of doing something different with that second story. Has there been any thought of doing something different? Mr. Bauer stated they tried to figure out what they could do there. There is no other way than to tear down and move back. Mr. Bauer provided a copy of the plan as provided to the building inspector. One of the reasons for asking for the cantilever bay situation is because it makes the windows work out and gives room to allow a double bed in that room. With angles, there would not be sufficient room. Mr. Gary Wellner stated he owned the property at 6412 Starlite and 6421 and 6423 Starlite Circle. He is the original developer of that parcel and has spent many hours working with the City. When originally platted, there were people opposed to the development the way it has been developed. It was done very carefully, very detailed and done with the neighborhood and the City. One of the most thorough things done. The variances that were granted were requested upon the original plat were very detailed and very well thought out. The buildings being constructed at 6420-6422 and 6430- 6432 were never intended to be built and that is part of the problem. There was a building that was part of the planning processes that have garages in front of the building with the reason being that those would accommodate 3 bedroom units and the other six lots were intended to have probably two bedroom units and no living space above the garage. There was second part of this which by not having living space above the garages, the garages would give a less dense look. The way constructed on 6420 is being done, it is not legal almost until you get to the side entry door. Another concern is the drainage. As Mr. Bauer has built this by berming the back yards, the drainage from that lot will flow directly onto 6412, which is not proper. With the garages being setback at 3 feet at that point and having to put a sidewalk there to go to the side entry door, there will be a support problem for concrete, but furthermore there is not way to come out of there for drainage. The drainage right now is clearly going to be pooled on his property. He does not understand how this is going to be done. He cannot see how a swale can be put in within that property. He has no desire to give up an already small side yard for drainage. He has a hard time seeing the justification for the City to come in and take part of the lot to get rid of the drainage problem. The second building on Lots 4A and 4B could be constructed with the original intent very nicely. Mr. Wellner showed drawings of the original configuration on the lots. He finds it very difficult to understand how this could have been allowed. Human error certainly is an element. When he platted, he did so with the help of the City in good faith. The City had concerns about it being congested 2EE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 8 and felt by having the garages out to the front and the building to the rear would address that concern. The lots are shaped as such to expand the buildings behind the garages. Putting a fire wall helps address part of his concern but he is not sure it addresses his concern about the closeness. He suggests that Lot 4A and 4B be built to comply with the code. There is no reason why this could not be done. It would cause modifying the plans and he believes this is proper. He believes the Commission is here to enforce the Code and he thought Mr. Bauer must address the Code and know the parameters under which to operate. Mr. Bauer may not be familiar with Fridley but he knows the process. The City is at fault to a certain extent. Lots 4A and 4B can be addresses and he hopes they will. When he built, he complied with the Code and did not ask for variances. Now we allow someone to come in and build buildings that don't meet the Codes and without enforcing others will start building anywhere they want and then come in and ask for a variance. The whole thing should have been thought out before hand. A 10 foot side yard setback is a minimum and that is the Code and he would like to see that enforced. We have a situation now where the bedroom window on 6412 look directly into the bedrooms of the building on Lots 3A and 3B. That was part of the original process that having a building flare out in the rear part of the low that this would not happen. He did not feel this should be allowed and he would request the variance be denied and certainly deny 4A and 4B. The only justification is a financial hardship. Having been involved in building, he has a responsibility to know what he is doing and where he is doing it. The rules are not always the same. He cannot totally fault the City but he thought that staff missed the boat in this case. When he came to City Hall to question this, the plan was there and showed the garages and showed a dotted line and it became very obvious that there was intended living space. The person approving the plans was certainly in error. He requests the variance be denied. He realizes there are financial consequences. He believes there is devaluation to his property. The intent was to have living space to the rear of the garages. This information was accessible to staff and available to Mr. Bauer if the time had been taken to find it. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Wellner' s reaction to the fire wall option. Mr. Wellner stated it does not address the drainage problem. If the building were torn down, it could be regraded and could have the elevation there to address major concern. He has living space on the ground and he has not had any water problems, but with the elevation as it is he feels they will have water in the basement. The fire wall does not address the concern of the crowding issue. That is the bare minimum he would like to see done. He does not think the cantilever idea should be allowed and they be required to be back 10 feet for whatever fire wall they put in. 2FF APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 9 Mr. Levy Powell agreed with Mr. Wellner. It is congested in that area and he supports Mr. Wellner's ideas on this project. Mr. Bauer stated the drainage problem could be handled. This is not an impossible situation. One side of the building was rained down. The rest will come around to the side of 6422 and 6430. Dr. Vos stated it seems that the elevation difference between 6412 and 6420 is more than one foot or two. Mr. Bauer stated it can be but down to about 1.5 feet. What is there now is not the finish grade. Ms. Pat Bender stated she has lived in her home about 10 years. The existing buildings were done before they moved in. She is against it and has been for years. She thought it was done and were waiting for the remaining lots to be sold. They are concerned about the off street parking. She did not know if the driveways would be big enough for cars and where would cars park. They live in a single family home and she is concerned about property values. As far as the one that is already built there, there may be nothing we can do about it. The other two lots should be combined into one. That would have financial loss but what about the rest of the single family owners who would lose value on their homes. Dr. Vos asked if Ms. Bender was against any variance. Ms. Bender stated she was against the whole thing. This is a residential area with single family homes. With rental property, she did not know what that would lead to in the future. Mr. LeVander stated the twinhomes are residential in the first place. The property backs up to industrial and he did not think single family homes would go in there. It is common to buffer single family from industrial and commercial with twinhomes. Mr. Joy Peka stated she lives in a single family home. She is concerned about people parking in front of her house. She has two young children and is concerned about the crowding, the traffic and the congestion that would result in that area. Mr. Wellner stated at some time there will economic damages. They come in the form of reconstruction of a building, the form of a lawsuit for damages, etc. It seems this could be addressed by complying with the Code and then let the City and Mr. Bauer work out however it would work out. It is not his place to have to sue the City or Mr. Bauer for the things going on here, but he does believe that will devalue his property and he feels the neighborhood feels the Code should be complied with. When the matter goes to the City Council, some of those members who worked on the original plat will be there as well. Sometimes these things 2GG APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE 10 continue to go on and, in the long run, the cost is about the same. The buildings are up right now and we cannot do much about that. He thought this is misleading and he thought they should not take that position and there is no justification to take that position concerning Lots 4A and 4B and, he hoped this was also true on Lots 3A and 3B. Mr. LeVander stated he thought avoid lawsuits, claims with the insurance companies, etc. and thought this would be a mistake. Staff has accurately assessed the situation and made a reasonable recommendation on how to proceed. Mr. Bauer has asked to be given an extra one foot. As far as closeness to the buildings, Mr. Wellner platted the property years ago and received the variances so that issue in large part was resolved when the platting was done. We have asked for a modest change in staff's recommendation and he felt staff would not make a recommendation if it was not within the criteria of the City Code. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:38 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she would like to clarify the issue. There are three options - the Appeals Commission could approve the variances as requested and to do so we would have to find an undue hardship; the Commission could deny the variance requests; or the Commission could approve a modified plan which would include a fire wall option. There are some issues here that we are not involved with. One is that lawsuits is a not concern of this Commission. The background on what happened and whether or not there would be two family homes is not a concern of this Commission. The only concern is to consider the variance request to reduce the side yard setbacks. The Commission should focus on this with the understanding that the request will go to the City Council and that is where the issues can be dealt with. Dr. Vos stated hardship is one of the only reasons a variance is granted. When he asked the petitioner the hardship, the petitioner stated financial reasons which is not a hardship. His recommendation is to deny for Lots 4A and 4B. If you came in prior to construction and asked to put living quarters within 10 feet of the building to the south, he would also deny that. At this time, since the hardship is not financial, he would deny 3A and 3B also. Ms. Smith stated, while she agrees the petitioner should have known what the City Code is, the City did approve the plans that showed living space over the garage and she would be inclined to take the requests individually and a grant modified option for the two south lots. Since there is an option to do something on the two north 2HH APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 1993 PAGE it lots, she would vote for denial. Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred with Dr. Vos. The builder should have realized that there is a standard requirement for living space to be 10 feet back. He agreed there was confusion in the way the original variances were written, although it does say garage and, unfortunately, the City staff did not pick up. The building has started but he thought it best to correct the situation now before going any further. He would recommend denial of the variance requests. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #93-09, to reduce the side yard setback on Lot 3A from 10 feet to 4. 5 feet and on Lot 3B from 10 feet to 5 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH COMMISSIONERS KUECHLE, VOS, AND SAVAGE VOTING AYE AND COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #93-09, to reduce the side yard setback on Lot 4A from 10 feet to 7 feet and on Lot 4B from 10 feet to 6 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council would review this request at their meeting of June 21, 1993 . 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-10, BY MICHAEL MILLIGAN: Per Section 205. 07 . 03 .D. (2) . (c) . ( (3) ) of the Fridley ping Code, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner to from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction three-car garage on Lot 1, Block 3 , Rice Creek Terrace o Addition, the same being 392 - 66th Avenue N.E. / MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU LY. Ms. McPherson sta d the variance request is to reduce the side yard setback from the corner side of a corner lot from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a detached accessory structure facing the side street. The request is for 392 - 66th Avenue N.E. The perty is generally located at the intersection of 66th 211 Community Development Department u PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 16, 1993 TO: William Burns, City Manager �,�• FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Request, VAR #93-09, by Walter Bauer; 6420-6422 and 6430-6432 Starlite Circle N.E. The Appeals Commission on a 3 : 1 vote recommended denial of the side yard setback variance for the twin home located at 6420-6422 Starlite Circle N.E. The Appeals Commission on a unanimous voted recommended denial of the side yard setback variance request at 6430-6432 Starlite Circle N.E. While the Appeals Commission recognized that the City approved the plans showing the living space over the garage, the Commission felt that the builder should have realized that typically there is a 10 foot setback in most communities. The Appeals Commission believed that its responsibility was to focus on the variance requests and not the potential outcome of lawsuits. The City Council has three options: 1. Approval of the variances would grant the following side yard encroachments: A. Lot 3A (6420 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 4 . 5 feet. B. Lot 3B (6422 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 5 feet. C. Lot 4A (6430 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7 feet. D. Lot 4B (6432 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 6 feet. 2 . Deny the variances. The Appeals Commission recommended that the City Council adopt this approach. Walter Bauer, VAR #93-09 June 16, 1993 Page 2 3 . Fire wall option. Staff had suggested this option in the case of 3A and 3B at 6420-6422 Starlite Circle N.E. It would require a fire wall within the existing building which would meet the 10 foot setback. A fire wall could be constructed exactly 10 feet parallel to the lot line on a diagonal through the unit, or at 90 degree angles to be more space efficient and practical . Variances would still be needed but smaller encroachments would result. In the case of Lots 4A and 4B, only the first floor is framed and there is more opportunity to comply with the ordinance. Staff had recommended either the fire wall option or denial. If the fire wall option is approved with walls constructed at 90 degree angles, the variances would be as follows: A. Lot 3A (6420 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 9 feet. B. Lot 3B (6422 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 9 . 4 feet. C. Lot 4A (6430 Starlite Circle) - there will be no living area encroachment. D. Lot 4B (6432 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 8 .7 feet. Should the fire wall option be approved, the staff report contains recommended stipulations for each of the lots. The City Council can pass a motion for each lot if necessary. BD/dn M-93-344 2A Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 16, 1993 TO: William Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Request, VAR #93-09, by Walter Bauer; Starlite Circle Because of the length of the staff report and attachments for the agenda, I would like to forward copies of the rezoning and plat request history on the Doty/Wellner Addition separately to the City Council through the information packet. Copies have been made in different colors regarding the plat request and the rezoning request. It is anticipated that Gary Wellner, one of the petitioners of the original proposal, will be at the City Council meeting, so I wanted to have all of the background information prepared for the City Council. Let me know if you need additional information. BD/dn M-93-348 Recommendation Variance #1, Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission adopt the following motion: The Appeals Commission recommends approval of a variance on Lot 3A with the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 9 feet for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 4 . 5 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with of a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. 6. The petitioner shall construct a swale along the south lot line to drain the runoff to the street, and not on the adjacent owner's property. Recommendation Variance #2r Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission adopt the following motion: The Appeals Commission recommends approval of a variance on Lot 3B with the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 9 feet 4 inches for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 5 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. Recommendation Variance #3, Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle Because the second floor of this structure has not been constructed, the Commission may either pursue option two, denying the variances and forcing a redesign of the unit, or option three where a fire wall is constructed within each of the units. With the fire wall option, the stipulations are: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . There is no living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 6 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. Recommendation Variance #4, Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle If the fire wall option is recommended, the stipulations are: 1. A diagonal wall is constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion as indicated in the attached plans. 2 . If the 90 degree angle is constructed, the variance is from 10 feet to 8.7 feet for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure which is located 7 feet from the lot line. 4 . The wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. . - - 91TY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) VARIANCE CITY OF FRIDLEY ) In the Matter of: a variance, VAR 493-09 Owner: Walter Bauer The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 21st day of June , 19 93 , on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To reduce the setback between the living area and the side lot line on: * Lot 3A (6420 Starlite Circle) from 10 feet to 7.25 feet; * Lot 3B (6422 Starlite Circle) from 10 feet to 7.25 feet; * Lot 4A (6430 Starlite Circle) from 10 feet to 9 feet; * Lot 4B (6432 Starlite Circle) from 10 feet to 7.25 feet. All located in Doty/Wellner Addition. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approval with seven stipulations. See City Council minutes of June 21, 1993. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF FRIDLEY ) I, William A. Champa, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at'r the City of Fridley,, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the /� day of 19 �d DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 � .. William A. Champa, City C4erk (SEAL.) vJ a Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within that period. ' 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 3 Mayor Nee felt strongly that the stop sign issue des rves some review as to whether or not more stop signs are needed He stated that he wanted the Public Works Department to conduc a review of the neighborhood, and that a larger area should be tudied rather than one intersection. He stated that if stop si s are installed at every other corner on Third Street, the situ ion may be worse on Second Street. He stated that the City woul do a study and see how this can be resolved. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she h the same situation in her neighborhood, and she obtained a pe tion from the residents. PETITION NO. 11-1993 FOR CONCRET CURBS: Mrs. Weiser, 6876 Madison Street, s mitted a petition for concrete curb and upgrading of Seventh St r et. She stated that over fifty percent of the residents are in vor of this improvement at a cost of $8. 00 a front foot. She ated that there are 24 properties involved, and sixteen wer at home when the petition was circulated. They were all favor of this improvement except for one. MOTION by Councilman illings to receive Petition No. 11-1993. Seconded by Councilwo an Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee decl ed the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS• 1. ORDINANC NO. 1014 UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE TREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE ACATION REQUEST, SAV 93-01 BY MARK AND JEAN SCHWARTZ AND RANK AND VALLIE LABANDZ : MOTIO by Councilwoman Jorgenson to waive the second reading of Ordi ance No. 1014 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS• 2 . RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 18, 1993• A. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #93-09 BY WALTER BAUER, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BETWEEN THE LIVING AREA AND THE SIDE LOT LINE FROM 10 FEET TO 4. 5 FEET AT 6420 STARLITE CIRCLE; 10 FEET TO 5 FEET AT 6422 STARLITE CIRCLE; 10 FEET TO 7 FEET AT 6430 STARLITE CIRCLE; AND 10 FEET TO 6 FEET AT 6432 STARLITE CIRCLE N.E. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the properties involved in the variances are two twin homes located in FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 4 the northwest part of Starlite Circle. She stated that the property is zoned R-2 and is known as the Doty-Wellner Addition. She stated that the variances are to reduce the setbacks between the living area and the side lot lines for the properties at 6420, 6422, ' 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that this property was originally platted as a result of a lengthy rezoning and platting process initiated in 1980 and completed in 1982. She stated that a number of variances were granted at this time for the twin home lots. She stated that the variances were granted because at that point in history the City did not have a zero lot line provision in the ordinance. She stated that the variances granted included a lot width variance for each of the twin home lots; a side yard variance for a garage from 5 feet to 3 feet; a front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet for four lots; and for the single family lots, there were some side yard and rear yard variances. Ms. Dacy stated that as part of the plat and rezoning process, the petitioners submitted two types of twin homes that were being contemplated for construction, Type A and Type B. She. stated that the Type A plan included a double garage, and the Type B plan included a single garage but did not indicate living area above the garages. She stated that one of the petitioners, Mr. Wellner, currently owns the existing lot to the south of one of the properties at 6412 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that the .variance requested is to reduce the side yard setback for the living area, and there is a different variance for each of the lots. She stated that the petitioner, Bauer Construction, has submitted two site plans for consideration. She stated that for the properties at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle, the garage is located in front of the living area. The construction is similar for the twin home at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. Ms. Dacy stated that during the plan review process, the setbacks were reviewed to assure the garages met the variances granted in the 1980 's. She stated that the submitted surveys for each of the twin homes clearly indicate a garage. However, there is no mention of the living area above the garage unless one reviews the building plans. She stated that while the garage location on each of the twin home lots meets the setback requirements, the existence of a living area on the second floor above the garage dictates the need for a variance from the ten foot required side yard setback. Ms. Dacy stated that at 6420 Starlite Circle, there is 4 . 5 feet between the lot line and the corner of the living area; at 6422 Starlite Circle, there is 5 feet between the lot line and living area; at 6430 Starlite Circle, there is 7 feet between the living area and lot line; and at 6432 Starlite Circle, there is 6 feet between the living area to the lot line. She stated that the twin 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 5 i homes at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle has the foundation installed, framed, exterior siding, as well as the electrical, roofing, and plumbing systems installed. She stated that the twin homes at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle have the foundation installed, framed, and a minimal amount of plumbing has been completed. She stated that when it was detected there was an error in construction, the contractor was asked to stop work immediately. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission considered this variance request on June 1, 1993 and had three options. She stated that they could approve the variances as requested; deny the variances and instruct the owner to redesign the units to meet the ten foot setback requirement; or consider a modified variance request where a fire wall is constructed within each of the units to meet the ten foot setback requirement. She stated that in three of the units there would be a small encroachment into the ten foot setback area ranging from 8 inches to 1.3 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that if a fire wall is constructed at 90 degree angles so that the interior of the unit is physically separated that it meets the intent of the ordinance. She stated that it is recommended this fire wall be constructed of 5/8 inch gypsum board and the interior of the wall that has been constructed should also be lined with 5/8 inch gypsum board to produce a double stop to prevent spread of fire. Ms. Dacy stated that if the fire wall option is pursued, the Council would be granting variances from 10 feet to 9 feet at 6420 Starlite Circle; from 10 feet to 9.4 feet at 6422 Starlite Circle; at 6430 Starlite Circle there would be no encroachment because the fire wall would be in excess of ten feet away from the lot; and at 6432 Starlite Circle, the encroachment would be from 10 feet to 8.7 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the variances at 6420 and 6422 Starlite Circle on a 3 to 1 vote, and unanimously recommended denial of the variances at 6430 and 6432 Starlite Circle. She stated that if variances are approved based on the fire wall option, the petitioner should be required to record deed restrictions stating the fire wall cannot be removed and is intended for safety purposes. Ms. Dacy stated that there is a drainage concern along the common lot line between 6420 and 6412 Starlite Circle. She stated on that particular variance, staff recommends a swale to appropriately drain off to the street. Councilman Billings stated that the drawings are somewhat accurate, but not completely precise because there actually would be about a six inch variance required at 6430 Starlite Circle. He stated that the City requires a ten foot setback from living space and a five foot setback for garages. He stated that a garage can be located within five feet of the lot line, and a home can be located FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 6 within ten feet of the lot line. He stated that homes built with tuck-under garages have the entire home and garage located within the ten foot setback. He stated that there are a number of homes, typically in the Innsbruck area, where the home is built less than ten feet from the property line. There is space above the garage, but it is not living space. He stated that the outside wall of these buildings are straight up and down and less than ten feet from the property line but with no living area above the garage. This is essentially what staff is recommending with the fire wall in this particular instance. Councilman Billings stated that by providing the fire wall option, these twin homes would look similar to other twin homes in the area. He stated that these homes are built relatively close to the property line which is the result of the variances granted by the City in 1982 to Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty. Councilman Billings stated that there were a number of persons who testified at the Appeals Commission meeting that they did not want twin homes on those sites. He stated that this property is already zoned R-2 which means twin homes or double bungalows are permitted on these lots. He stated, therefore, that this is not the issue this evening. Councilman Billings stated that the issue before the Council is the living space inside the building. He stated that in 1982, the Council chose to grant a number of variances to most of the lots in this particular plat. He stated that Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty were able to convince a prior City Council that there was a hardship that necessitated a variance. He stated that he is not exactly sure what the hardships were but probably because of the odd shape of the lots. He asked if it would be reasonable to assume that whatever hardships existed in 1982 would also be true today. Ms. Dacy stated that the same conditions apply today which is the unusual shape of the lot. Councilman Billings stated that, essentially, nothing has really changed in regard to the lots since 1982 . He stated that he visited the site, and several neighbors approached him. Their primary concern was that they really did not want twin homes on the site. He stated that when he advised them this was not the issue before the Council, and the Council could not prevent the petitioner from constructing twin homes, they seemed disappointed. He stated that they pointed out that there is very little landscaping in the front of the two twin homes that already exist. He stated that he would like to know if the developer would be willing to install landscaping between the driveways to improve the appearance. i 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21 1993 PAGE 7 Councilman Billings stated that he has tried to determine what kind of variances he felt were reasonable had the petitioner applied for the variances prior to any building being done on the site. He stated that it seems the recommendation from staff as to fire walls makes sense in relation to other developments in the City and in terms of the building codes and zoning. He stated that the other question is if those fire walls should be less than the ninety degree angles. He stated that in several other cases in the City, one on McKinley and one on North Danube, there were approvals for variances for living space that would be six feet away from the property line. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if a drainage plan has been submitted. Ms. Dacy stated that no drainage plan was submitted, and in this particular instance, it would not be required. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked about fire walls in the homes where variances were granted. Ms. Dacy stated that the variances granted for the properties on McKinley and North Danube were within six feet of the property line. A fire wall is not required by the Uniform Building Code until a structure is within three feet. She stated that what staff is recommending is in excess of the code. i - Mr. LeVander, attorney representing Bauer Construction, stated that since Councilman Billings has described the history and justification for the variances, they probably would have been granted if the petitioner had come in before construction began. He stated that variances were granted to Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty some time ago for three feet from the garages. He stated that it is simply the variances for the living space which is now a problem. Mr. LeVander stated that the initial variances were modified quite substantially. He stated that he did not think what is proposed is substantially different than what Mr. Wellner had submitted when he suggested in his letter to the City on June 2, 1983 that "each unit will have a two-car garage with a bedroom above that area. " He felt that the variances would solve the problem, and they would install fire walls to avoid the spread of fire. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the original variance granted in 1982 did not allow for living space above the garage. She stated that the City received a letter from Mr. Wellner a year later which noted his intent to provide living space above the garage. Councilman Billings asked if Mr. Bauer would be willing to install plantings to improve the appearance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 8 Mr. Bauer stated that he would not have a problem with the landscaping. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Bauer if his company constructed buildings to maintain ownership and rent them or if they build and sell the units. Mr. Bauer stated that they maintain and keep units for rental, as well as build and sell. He stated that if anyone wished to purchase one of the units it could be sold. Mr. LeVander stated that the deed restrictions referred to by staff would also be acceptable. Mr. Wellner, owner of property at 6412, 6421, and 6423 Starlite Circle, stated that to give some history on these properties, the two car garages are a result of a compromise with the City because the neighbors raised concerns about parking. He stated that this was agreed upon by the City and the Council person at that time, Ed Hamernik. He stated that the plans were called A and B. Plan B was a single car garage, and Plan A came about in order to get final approval of the plat. He stated that the buildings had to be set back farther in order to have the garages located in front. He stated that the variances were granted after long, detailed discussions. He stated that he felt it was a mistake that Lot 4 is in preliminary construction. Mr. Wellner stated that with respect to the letter referred to by Mr. LeVander regarding living space above the garages, he is not sure of the context of the letter or that it was written by him. He stated that this probably has to do with the present buildings he owns and not with these lots in question. He stated that he is not sure the letter he submitted was in reference to these lots. Mr. Wellner stated that the drainage problem on Lot 3 is very serious. He stated that Mr. Bauer chose to elevate the building, and there is a 3.4 foot setback from the corner of the garage to the property line. He also has to install a three foot sidewalk along the garage. He stated that Mr. Bauer chose to change the grade, and he could have a drainage problem which could make the lower level unlivable. He stated that this particular lot drains directly on to his lot. This has to be dealt with and is a severe problem. Mr. Wellner stated that if the variances are granted with the fire wall, he suggested that at no time could anyone come back to the Council and petition for that area to be living space. Mayor Nee stated that he recalls the discussion about the garages and wanting to get cars off the street. He stated that as he looks back now, the buildings are probably too large for the site. i FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 9 Mr. Wellner felt that Lot 5 had to be included in the Council's deliberations. He stated'that the drainage problem created by the building at 6420 Starlite Circle better be dealt with in some fashion. He stated that he is not interested in donating any land to someone who elevates that building. Mr. Bauer stated that he hears what Mr. Wellner is saying; however, the garage floor is twelve inches above his garage floor. He stated that the cul-de-sac rises six inches above his building. He felt that the drainage could be handled. He stated that water in the rear of the building will drain to the north. He stated that he would have to deal with the water only on the south side, and this could be accomplished. Councilman Billings stated that Mr. Wellner has mentioned Lot 5. He stated that the property owner of this lot has not requested any variances, and a request has to be before the Council before any action can be taken. He stated that he would assume if the property owner for Lot 5 did request variances, and circumstances being similar to what they are on the other lots, the variances would be granted if the petitioner felt they were needed. He stated that in respond to Mr. Wellner's remark, it is his opinion the City cannot take away a person's right to make a request for a variance. Councilman Billings stated that in terms of the drainage, it is his understanding the drainage problem to which Mr. Wellner refers is a by-product of two elements; one being the elevation of the home being constructed at 6420 Starlite Circle and the other being the closeness of the building to Mr. Wellner's property. He stated that the garage being 3 or 3-1/2 feet from the property line is a direct result of the variance granted to Mr. Wellner in 1982. He stated that the living space above the garage makes no difference, as the garage is still that close to the property line as a result of the variance granted in 1982 to Mr. Wellner. He stated that the drainage is something Mr. Bauer needs to address in terms of his relationship with Mr. Wellner, but he does not think it is a prime factor for the variance. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if a drainage plan is required when someone adds fill to a property which may cause a drainage problem to either neighbor. Ms. Dacy stated that for a typical home or twin home a drainage plan would not be required. She stated that nothing has been submitted to staff which would lead them to believe there is a drainage issue involved. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if the City was aware that fill was being brought in for this property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 10 Mr. Wellner stated that the drainage on that particular lot was below the original elevation. He stated that when you look at the topography, there is a difference in elevation where this building is being built and the building he owns on the east side. He stated that he had the building constructed on the original elevation and did not have a problem. He stated that the elevation was created by Mr. Bauer's choice of raising the building. He stated that he did not believe Mr. Bauer brought in fill but bermed behind his property. He stated that he did not know why Mr. Bauer chose to elevate the building and create the drainage problem. Councilman Billings stated that the drainage problem is not connected to these variances but the elements of the existing elevation and the close proximity to the property line is. Mr. Wellner stated that he would not dispute this fact, and the setbacks did not cause the problem with the drainage. It was the elevation of the building. Mr. Bauer stated that the elevation is twelve inches higher than the property to the south, and the reason he went with this elevation is the next lot at 6430 Starlite Circle rises again. He stated that the lot might have been lower than Mr. Wellner's, but Mr. Wellner's lot was elevated somewhat. He stated that this building and the adjacent building were built a little higher in order to make it look better. He stated that the drainage problem can be handled. He stated that they probably will need to make a different sidewalk with a step down off the driveway to the sidewalk. He stated that he would not drain any water on Mr. Wellner's property. MOTION by Councilman Billings to grant Variance Request, VAR #93-09, with the fire wall option, subject to the following stipulations: (1) a diagonal wall is to be constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or (2) if a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion similar to what is indicated in the attached plans, the variance for Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle would be from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet; for Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet; for Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle from the required 10 feet to 9 feet; and for Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet for a living area encroachments; (3) this variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structures that are located less than 10 feet from the lot line and, further, that there are prior variances that have been issued to these lots; (4) the wall surface of the fire wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls; (5) the petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes; and (6) the petitioner will work with staff to specify and plant FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 11 appropriate plantings that will survive between the driveways of the individual twin homes. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if there was anything that could be done to have Mr. Bauer and Mr. Wellner work together towards the drainage plan. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that he heard Mr. Bauer say that he felt he could resolve the drainage problem. He stated that if he is not successful and there is a problem or some damages to Mr. Wellner's property, Mr. Bauer may have some civil liability. He felt that Mr. Bauer was aware of the concern. He stated that he did not know if there is anything the City can do to require the cooperation of the two persons. He assumes they would try to work out a mutual agreement. He stated that if there is a problem, the question is if one of the owners developed the property in an unreasonable fashion. Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that it may be prudent to attach another stipulation to include a drainage plan to show the drainage of the property to make sure it would not affect Mr. Wellner's property. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to add stipulation No. 7 as follows: (7) that a drainage plan be provided to staff prior to July 1, 1993 on the parcel at 6420 Starlite Circle. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3 . RECEIVE ITEMS FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUME 1 1993: A. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR 93-10 BY MICHAEL D JENNIFER MILLIGAN TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON CORNER LOT FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC ON OF A THREE-CAR GARAGE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 392 66TH NUE N.E. : Ms. Dacy, Community Development Direc stated that this is a request to reduce the side yard s ack on a corner lot from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow cons ction of a three car garage. She stated that the Appeals Co fission recommended a 17-1/2 foot setback rather than a 10 foot etback with four stipulations which she outlined. MOTION by Councilma Billings to concur with the unanimous recommendation of e Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, VAR # -101 with the following stipulations: (1) replacement of he existing driveway curb cut with B618 concrete curb and ter; (2) removal of the existing driveway; (3) I FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1993 PAGE 12 conversion of the existing garage to living area within 60 days of completion of the accessory structure; and (4) installation of a hardsurface driveway for the new garage by July 1, 1994. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR 93-11 BY TOP TOOL COMPANY TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 100 FEET TO 90 FEET O ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL ADDITION GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7615 BAKER STREET N.E. : Ms. Dacy, Community Development/nn tor, stat d that this is a request to reduce the front yardck from 00 feet to 90 feet to allow the construction of a addit' n to be used as an entry vestibule. She stated this wo d improve the energy efficiency of this area. Sheed at the petitioner is proposing to add additional parn ont of the building by increasing the number of spaces fo to eight. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgengrant Variance Request, VAR #93-11, with the followinglation: (1) the petitioner shall provide a landscape plan provides screening for the parking lot along Baker Streetprior to the issuance of a building permit. Screening shaprovided by either a three foot berm, hedge, or combinatio thereof. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimous 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES F OM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1993 • MOTION by Councilman illings to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission eeting of ly 26, 1993. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgens Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mo ion carried unanimously. 5. RECEIVE THE INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9 199 A. SPECIAL U E PERMIT REQUEST, SP 93-08 BY SAM'S AUTO BUYING PROGRAM TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE AGENCIES SELLING OR DISPLAYING NEW AN OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8150 U IVERSITY AVENUE N.E. : Ms/mp:e Community Development Director, stated that this is a rea special use permit by Sam's Auto Buying Program to alsale of cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats and cahe stated that the property is located in the northwest co81st Avenue and zoned C-3. She stated that Sam's Auto Buram is affiliated with Sam's Wholesale Club, but it is a corporate entity. She stated that they work with area deorder to provide specific automobile prices which are f 1463386 1 Numeri Grantor Grantee _ Recorded, checked C"a Margin Tr. Indax u OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER 4A- STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF ANOKA I hereby certify that the within instru- ment was filed in this office for r d on the qFP 0 31� 'Q!o'cloc M., and was duly recorded. fides~ d M. Tresit3. qourity Recorder �V'_'f i C� Community Development Department r —) PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 26, 1993 TO: William Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Update on Duplexes on Starlite Circle On June 21, 1993 , the City Council approved a number of variances for the duplexes on Starlite Circle. One of the stipulations required the petitioner to install landscaping between the driveways for each of the duplexes. We have met with the petitioner and have recommended a combination- of Barberry bushes and Junipers to be planted in a 4 ft. wide by 18-20 ft. long strips between- the driveways. This landscaping strip will not extend the full length of the driveway from the front of the structure to the curb. The curvature of the driveway as it reaches the curb line is such that a very narrow landscaping strip would result. It is important to maintain at least a four foot wide area between the driveways to allow adequate room for the vegetation to grow. The landscaping will appear to be located about half the length of the driveway. The adjacent twin home to the south has a narrow strip between the driveways that simply contains landscaping rock. The remaining twin home on the east side of the cul-de-sac does not have any landscaping at all and is solid concrete. The proposal should be attractive and will help "break up" the mass of concrete. BD: ls M-93-626 U Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: March 18, 1994 TO: Virgil Herrick, City Attorney FROM: V Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Restrictive Covenants for Twinhomes on Starlite Circle Stipulation #5 of VAR #93-09 required "the petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes" . As you recall, fire walls were installed in each of the bedroom units to meet the 10 foot living area setback. The legal descriptions of the properties are as follows: 6420 Starlite Circle, Lot 3A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition 6422 Starlite Circle, Lot 3B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition 6430 Starlite Circle, Lot 4A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition 6432 Starlite Circle, Lot 4B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition Lots 3A, 3B, and 4B were granted variances from 10 feet to 7. 25 feet. Lot 4A was granted a variance from 10 feet to 9 feet. The fire walls were installed inside the units in a fashion to meet the setback. The Building Inspector at that time confirmed their installation. Please drat_ the___proper document and forward _to_ me. _I will then ccon�act Bauer to determine if the title is in abstract or torrens. If torrens, I will obtain the Duplicate of Certificate of Title and record it. If it is abstract, I can record them. Let me know if you need anything. BD/dn M-94-150 C11Y OF FRIDLLY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER.6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432.(612)571-3450• FAX(612)571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE June 28, 1993 Walter Bauer 4324 Lake Point Court Shoreview, MN 55126 Dear Mr. Bauer: On June 21, 1993, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR #93-09, to reduce the setback between the living area and the side lot line on: A. Lot 3A (6420 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7.25 feet. B1. Lot 3B (6422 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7.25 feet. C. Lot 4A (6430 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 9 feet. D. Lot 4B (6432 Starlite Circle) - 10 feet to 7.25 feet. This approval is to allow the construction of two new two-family dwellings, contingent upon the following stipulations: 1. A diagonal wall is to be constructed to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, or 2. If a fire wall is constructed in a 90 degree fashion similar to what is indicated in the attached plans, the variance for Lot 3A, 6420 Starlite Circle, would be from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet; for Lot 3B, 6422 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7.25 feet; for Lot 4A, 6430 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 9 feet; and for Lot 4B, 6432 Starlite Circle, from the required 10 feet to 7. 25 feet for a living area encroachment. 3 . This variance request acknowledges the existence of a portion of the structure that are located less than 10 feet from the lot line and, further, that there are prior variances that have been issued to these lots. Walter Bauer, VAR #93-09 June 28, 1993 Page 2 4 . The wall surface of the fire wall shall be lined with a 5/8 inch gypsum board to face the interior of the unit. Further, a 5/8 inch gypsum board shall also be placed on the interior of the existing outside walls. 5. The petitioner, on forms provided by the City, shall record deed restrictions stipulating that the wall cannot be removed and is intended for fire safety purposes. 6. The petitioner will work with staff to specify and plant appropriate plantings that will survive between the driveways of the individual twin homes. 7. A drainage plan be provided to staff prior to July 1, 1993 on the parcel at 6420 Starlite Circle. You have one year from the date of City Council action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590. Sincerely, Barbara, Dacy, AICP Community Development Director BD/dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 12, 1993. Concur with action taken JUL-29-1993- 1 11 FROM E.G. PUD & SotJS TO BAUER CONST. K LtiZ ffµ��-{�'� G r ♦!'�Jl�+r�-•'jYY�-,yU,�} zr ��a• - •t "r 7p�x ';'h r 'fix. J t _ ��- � �` -�•�`• r v I— / cc Co ,�9�..ice' .. f� JJ''�� (7� �"'� ` V `� � .±,Y•�, , .�';4+5�ii t� - � ,fid ��'' � \ C -r.� •�`•,'.,� a 1'�R �' ",•r ti ;� St' � � U � ��', kf 71 � 1l; ,..- .�_, �r�. .,�-- -,- '.. r w---- � _. ... ---` --�. _•_._..ate- Ov,� --'��",yr"/��Il� +�r�`l:�i,�.w - 49 � f'r �+moi � .� •�� 7 ��i V ` / � �C �r� ��' �...!• 4/7Y fK ` �X -N'� �t � r l jJ �L`C R,.��a /. � (j/`'+7\ ,J / • �' fS1^'l f" Y: A l.. Itx.� L •'ha J--n V ��y '> � ,' Q�' •�' .rte �� '/ , - .,...:.:.,A. •.,...;rte.: t.a.. O � r .-, '"/ •r:a�'RXf -+. •moi= �1•+ � "f ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SC� �j•� -'K'"'�s'?x ..� '�'i'+c`,�'—.+�,�F'yw�.-��'�`� f +��' Y' _ ,y►.:.j�,ry T.-.-�+.`�;2�r,'J"t+ `e'er '"' ' '� •�. tV f // ��1, - '� ✓1 � i,eit vo Ae Ey77 sno <117 0 Lo •�Jry �.. ; � IIL�C+ 1 '� \ ��' It ` ..��1 d / '-rati {.J . , :ZJ 00 �� 1 nO L4 __asnOH �a KtFc� W dO doi ACV tog *z �blIf .00' • � L' � v ` � _ice .,..�;: 1)Y'F�'i•N.v .. •+ .A'r s •�".h �—.... - � 7�.`1K S�':tet —.---M n i+ #...fit iy A N � �� > � ,� aap BUTMotto3 ►u�TaEn a aog papaq pup ¢ }ua anogp aqy E 1jE(y :aauMo uI IIHJ do ASIO IV do AINCIOD i ax do SSvZS f 1 Numerica ' ,+r Grantor Grantee s Recorded„_„ _ Checked Margin Ir. Index u w rr, 0 Get OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER i �- STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF A140KA ` I hereby certify that the within instru- ment was filed in this office for rR d '( on the 0 3 �J wo'cloc _M., and was duly recorded. td" d M T c0. qou,ly Recorder � <, i ..�- 1141889 THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1994 by and between Walter Bauer ("the Developer") and the City Q � of Fridley, Minnesota, a Municipal Corporation ("the City") . Walter Bauer is the Developer of the following described property situated in the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, State `4t of Minnesota, to-wit: vJ Lot 4A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition - ("the Subject Property") . The Developer was issued a variance from the City's side yard setback requirements for living areas of the twin home built on the Subject Property. As a requirement for issuing said variance, the City required a separate fire wall to be installed in the rooms over the garages on the subject property for safety purposes. The fire walls are required to be installed in such a manner that the living areas would be no closer than 9 feet from the side property line. NOW, THEREFORE, the Developer in exchange for the variance hereby places the following restrictive covenants on the properties: 1. The Subject Property shall be constructed with a fire wall ("the Fire Wall") in the living space above the garages which shall be set back from the exterior support walls such that it is no closer than 9 feet from the lot line, as depicted in Exhibit A. 2 . The Developer, his heirs, successors or assigns shall maintain said Fire Walls and shall not remove, alter or replace the Fire Walls in any manner without prior written approval of the City. OWaltauer STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Olti&ti , 1994 by Walter Bauer. `<.; STEVLtj .J. :i','0 ADSKI < NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA <, RAMSE'!COUNTY My Comm.Expires Nov.2,1995 ■VVWWVVVVVVVVVVVVVV\,w'JVVVVVVVVVV +� CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA , t BY: William J. N f. 9 ; Its Mayor ' AND BY: W 11iam W. Burns Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) T iq instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by William J. Nee, Mayor, in and for the Cit<j—or-Frictiey, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said City. ROBERT `..OTARYPUBLIC ��ANOKA COUNTY Comm.Exp,Jan.31.2m -2- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 2day of c f' 011994 by William W. Burns, City manager, in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said City. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. (GVH) ROSERTAS.COLLINS 400 Northtown Financial Plaza NOTAMYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA ANOKA COUNTY 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard @jMy Comm.Exp.Jan.31,2000 Minneapolis, MN 55433-5894 ^-"��'�" ,':'-'=�ti'= (612) 780-8500 F:\C0RP\GVH\FR1DLEY\8AUERI.AGR -3- -. ..-- y . , n1 f r tt,+++,��h►�i1IMt�.�A�Y11Y1I1�MM .�� - EXHIBIT ,►P;, « , R U..0 Tf 0 NCO. or' �• ti -2 9°40' 5 �� 1 D r ' _ e7CD d= �>� ;:.c �r/�'; � � � -. 131 L� `�Q17 (n 1 .._a � 1 •`' y mk Pro �� °p• 1 r p. o rouse -� � M` �- - _ 'oo• Houser • to �� 85 Prop.. t• \ - . W / ` t CP Hou s•e10 Gar. 3�'D.5 f•/ `: - � ,o�oo \\G •l, X 8¢9.9 Nouse/ L r ` Gar. vw . j c- < 847..8 - - rr tiD. 0 ° z .`q4" -_ �` .> '.+..-.+�.� _ •.' �,'t •, l i •:Qom- )<- _L-- `,... _ /:,. ►!t1wlY�Fr�`+C.a�'.'S— -'.. :tel rr� . 1''?'c''�V"•rs��J�i� =�]e+:�' TOTAL P.0 ' OCT-03-1994 15:13 FROM E.G. RUD & SONS TO BAUER CONST. P.02 L� EXHIBIT- Go XHIBIT 4' vCo C_V Aj cl 00) T2s w 25i 00, A CD � 49 \ C G • :t Cb CD CY COIN a ro i TVN (510 7 N Po y 2. R, 3 ---- -------------- f „r' r DOCUMENT NO. 1141889 . 0 ABSTRACT ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON NOV 0 2 9 4 AND WAS DULY RECORDED, AT 10 : 0 0 AM FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19 . 50 PAID. RECEIPT NO. 94053771 EDWARD M.TRESKA ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES BY GKE DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRA TOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1141891 THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1994 by and between Walter Bauer ("the Developer") and the City W1 of Fridley, Minnesota, a Municipal Corporation ("the City") . [� Walter Bauer is the Developer of the following described property situated in the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, State � of Minnesota, to-wit: �_37/�'� .� Lot 3A, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition 4 Lot 3B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition M Lot 4B, Block 1, Doty/Wellner Addition ("the Subject Property") . The Developer was issued a variance from the City's side yard setback requirements for living areas of twin homes built on the Subject Property. As a requirement for issuing said variance, the City required separate fire walls to be installed in the rooms over the garages on all units for safety purposes. The fire walls would be installed in such a manner that the living areas would be no closer than 7.25 feet from the side property line. NOW, THEREFORE, the Developer in exchange for the variance hereby places the following restrictive covenants on the properties: 1. The Subject Property shall be constructed with a fire wall ("the Fire Wall") in the living space above the garages which shall be set back from the exterior support walls such that it is no closer than 7. 25 feet from the lot line, as depicted in Exhibit A. 2 . The Developer, his heirs, successors or assigns shall maintain said Fire Walls and shall not remove, alter or replace the Fire Walls in any manner without prior written roval of the City. a ter Bauer STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) / This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 6C 6�- , 1994 by Walter Bauer. ■AAAAAAMMIAAAAMA_1.1nAAAAi\MAnA/VV\A s < .. STEVEN J.ZAWADSKI << NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA <.AJ_- RAMSEY COUNTY < My COMM.Expires Nov.2,1995 VVVVVV• -,., .,.. .. .: _ „n,-Vin./:;•.i,siV• CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA William J. Nee Its Mayor : r ... AND r ! BY:� f' William W. Burns ;) Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKAOA ) instrument was acknowledged before me this 7f�day of _, 1994 by William J. Nee, Mayor, in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said City. ROBERTA S.COLLINS rl/'/ NOTARY PUBLIC-NIINNMA ANOKA COUNTY My Comm.Exp.Jan.31.2000 OF -2- ��'��miae+4�,4►+tA C Y'� 3 r., 'R i Y - f `�� 5, -a STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of C-to SC , 1994 by William W. Burns, City Manager, in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said City. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: AAMMMMIW BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. (GVH) ROBERTAS.000" 400 Northtown Financial Plaza NOTARVKWIC-MI UMA NTY 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard .... Myc�.Exp Joan 31,2OW Minneapolis, MN 55433-5894 (612) 780-8500 F:\C0RP\GVH\FRIDIEY\BAUER2.AGR -3- �MAMMAn+�.�•..,.t� BHUUOO.2 ATF13BOR /� AT02 Wl1f t-MJOIK YPATOA , OCT-03-1994 15:13 FROM E.G. RUD 8 SONS TO BAUER CONST. P.02 41Tv FjiI EXHIBIT' ..A.. .., . Y ^ 4 �S /L 1 n o ,w r O ; 4""of sy. 4 .m O) ,�• �\ p, _ 6' —� \. •mac` : � _�^� co � c o , . �• CDcv h ell rw lr- �+ 1 ITS �� s a. : . y. •. f --t .a IrCIA r 46 fix"` • ?:. b� // v `\`// `�� t';Si s NN 17 x p .,ikA • _ I --------- - - - Viii Eilt 'I': nen tt. STCTION R CO. I �•3{ 2 �1 �t.,s1 ?.2. 50' f } ; t —r r qtr 7+, x.�x 3• c,; LA , • . 2k'°° N Pro p• ' Q, Prop. House8 51 'oma• House _ tu- ! -� G c r.O mGar ,4 \ �` 5.31 850• '. ,24''' a�O, - Prop.. `�� JCPl House -lb f - �/ co�.00 \L -�• 849.9 :,a.€" r: Prop. / O D ,,• (� ,,v ., Housed - �5 } Gar. �° 8 49.1 �8� � : •;.. .:} n - ti� 2'° tom' `, X J• b CP ; pX `1 l l It c � Pi TOTAL P.0 S DOCUMENT N0. 11418 91 . 0 ABSTRACT ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON NOV 0 2 9 4 AT 10 : 00 AM AND WAS DULY RECORDED. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19 . 50 PAID. RECEIPTNO. 94053771 EDWARD M.TRESKA ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES GKE BY DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES