PL 11/09/1983 - 30605''�-1
C-I;TY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 9, 1983
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairwoman Schnabel called the November 9, 1983, Planning Corr�nission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Sa ba,
Mr. Goodspeed
Members Absent: Mr. Svanda
Ottiers Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Carl Asprotf�, 470 Rice Creek Terrace
Marlene Knight, 513 Rice Creek Terrace
Anita & Duane Prairie, 489 Rice Creek Terrace
Charles Lane, 482 Rice Creek Terrace
- Harold Olsrud, 435 Rice Creek Terrace
Ed Hamernik, 6740 Monroe St. N.E.
James Hagen, 6736 � 7th St. N.E.
�'1 David & Ma•rlene Richter, 6746 - 7th St. N.E.
Fred & Arella Sarette, 494 Rice Creek Terrace
�
APPROVAL_OF OCTOBER 19, 1983, PLANNING CONMIISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the Oct. 19, 1983,
pTanning Commission minutes as written. �
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel declared the motion
carried unanimously.
l. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #83-11 BY CARL A, ASPROTH: Per
Section 205.0 1, 3, A, o tF�e Fri ey City Co e, to al ow the construction
of a second accessory building, a 26' by 40' detached garage, on Lot 8,
Block 5, Rice Creek Terrace, Plat 4, ti�e same being 470 Rice Creek Terrace N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded 6.y Ms. Gabel � to open tFie pufil i� h.eartl�g
on SP #83-11 by Carl A. Asproth.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnafie7 declared tEie �public
hearing open at 7:32 p.m.
Mr. 6oardman stated the Comni'ssion memfiers bad MeJao �83-8Q from Bill Deblon
regarding the special use permit request.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 9, 1983 PAGE 2 �
Mr. Boardman stated the plan included in the agenda shows the house, existing
garage, and where the potential garage would be located. Apparently, there
was an addition on the back of the house which does not show on the plan.
Staff was not sure of the size of that addition. Until Staff knows exactly
the amount of square footage of 6ui7ding area the petitioner has, Staff is
concerned that t�e petitioner might be getting very close to the 25� lot
coverage. The lot size is 13,358 sq. ft, so the maximum building area a71ow-
able is about �3,340 sq. ft. Mr. Boardman stated the plan (from the aerial
�hotoj shows 2,815 sq. ft. If the addition on the house is about 500 sq, ft
r. �sproth may be over the 25% lot coverage.
Mr. Boardman stated that when Staff looked at the property, they gave the
petitioner the setback requirements, lot coverage requirements, the size of
the building allowed on the lot, and the restrictions on the use such as home
occupation. Staff has some concern with the size of the building, especially
when there is an underground tunnel and a basement under the structure.
Mr. Boardman stated that judging from the aerial photo, there seems to be
enough room by the side of the house to get a driveway back, but this won't
be confirmed until a survey is done. If the Planning Corronission recommends
approval of the special use permit, be would recommend a survey be obtained
hefore t�is goes to City Council.
The petitioner, Carl Asproth, was in the audience.
Mr. Asproth stated that as far as he was concerned, the size of the garage
could be smaller. He could make the garage fit into the requirements as far
as lot coverage. He stated that his son, who is a taxidermist, lives with
him. Right now his son has a freeze-dry unit in the existing garage and is
working in there. His son has looked at renting some space for his business,
but he cannot afford it. The reason for the new garage is for storage.
Mr. Boardman asked if Mr. Asproth was planning to convert the existing garage
from garage to working space.
Mr. Asproth stated his son is working in the garage right now.
Mr. Boardman explained that a home occupation is not an allowable use in an
accessory building. Right now the existing garage is an accessory building
and cannot be used for a home occupation. Home occupation has to be run out
of a lfving area. If Mr. Asproth turned the existing garage into living space,
then the home occupation would be allowable as long as the home occupation is
accessible through the living structure. Mr. Boardman stated that this was one
of Staff's concerns regarding this special use permit request. It would have
to be made very clear that a home occupation cannot operate out of an accessory
building.
��
Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Asproth the reason for constructing a tunnel.
�
Mr. Asproth stated there would be a basement under the new garage. The tunnel
wou7d connect the house to the basement of the new garage. The tunnel was
necessary because his son would be moving the display cases that are presently
in the bas�nent of the house to the basement of the new garage for storage.
a
'�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVE�BER 9, 1983 PAGE 3
Ms. Schnabe7 asked about the construction of the tunne]
Mr. Asproth stated it would be constructed of concrete blocks. It would be
fire-proof with fire-proof doors on both ends.
Mr. Oquist stated it appeared that the basement of the new garage would be
used for display purposes to show potential customers, and he did not think
that was legal, because the basement of t�e garage is still part of the
accessory building.
Mr. Goodspeed stated he saw two problems: (1) T�e taxidermy business in tbe
existing garage right no�¢ is illegal; and (2) The use of the new facility
might not be legal either.
� Mr. Boardman stated that if Mr. Asproth took the existing garage that is
. attached to the house, blocked it off so it became part of the house structure,
he could use t�at for a home occupation as long as there is no access directly
to the outside and access is gained from inside t�e house structure. In that
situation, a special use permit would no longer be required because the first
accessory building would 6e the new garage that is proposed. However, there
is still the prob7em that the new garage cannot be used for any part of a
fiome occupation. The only way he can use t�at new garage space for home
�"� occupation is if that structure abuts the house structure itself and becomes
a part of the house structure. A portion of the new structure could still be
used as garage space. and that garage space would 6e classified as the new
accessory building. At this point, they do not know what Mr. Asproth's house
looks like wit6 the addition. The way the plan is laid out and Mr. Asproth's
intent for use of the new structure, he would not meet the home occupati.on
requirement even if he did meet tFie 25% lot coverage requirement.
Mr. Goodspeed stated it would be conceivab7e to expand onto the basement of
tbe �ouse wit�out building on top of the basement, seal his existing garage,
and then build a normal garage.
Mr. Boardman stated that was a possibility if it met all the codes.
Mr. Asproth stated he wanted the building to look decent. Where he proposed
to build t�e garage, it would be practically 6idden 6ecause of the trees.
The garage would 6e stuccoed the same as the house. If �e added an addition
to the house, it is going to affect everybody, and it will not look as nice.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the Planning Camnission real]y needed a survey to
know what the exact measurements were of the existing structure.
Ms. Schnabe7 asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to
caronent on this request.
^ Mrs. Marlene Knight, 513 Rice Creek Terrace, stated she would like to have an
understanding of what the coding is in this particular area. She stated that
five years ago, a neighbor wanted to build a detached garage. At that time,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 9, 1983� PAGE 4
it was her unders'tanding that there was a provision in the abstracts made by
the developer in that particu7ar neighborhood that no one could build a
detac�ed structure and that those structures fiad to be attac�ed to the house.
She stated when they boug�t their �ouse six years ago, tfiey were informed of
t6is fact by tfieir attorney. S�e stated tfiat every house in that area has an
attached garage and there are no detached garages.
Mr. Boardman stated the City does not have anythinq on covenants recorded
at the City. This would be recorded at the County. When developers put on
restrictions like this, they record the private covenants with the County.
Mr. Boardman sugge5ted Mr. Asproth check to see if he had any type of covenant
on his deed.
Mr. Charles Lane, 482 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that Mr. & Mrs. Holerud
could not be at the meeting, but they had given him a letter to bring to the
Planning Comnission meeting. He read the follo�ing letter:
"Tn regards to t�e request of Mr. Carl Asproth to construct a 40' x
2fi' 6uilding in his back yard at 470 Rice Creek Terrace, Fridley.
As next door home owners, I, Carlton Holerud,and my wife, Mary P. Holerud,
are opposed to a building of this size being constructed."
Mr. Lane stated he would also be similarly opposed to granting a special use
permit, primarily because he felt an accessory building in the back yard
would detract cons.iderably from the value of his property, if and when he
would be in a position to sell it. He stated his family room looks out onto
Mr. Asproth's back yar�.
Mrs. Fred Sarette, 494 Rice Creek Terrace,�stated she had a letter from
Mr. Miles Gerard, 506 Rice Creek Terrace, who also could not be at the meeting.
She read the following letter:
"In reviewing proposal of a special use permit, SP #83-11, by
Carl A. Asproth for construction of a second building (26' x 40')
at 470 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., I feel I was misinformed at time of
signing neighborhoad petition. I request my signature be void from
said neighborhood petition. and respectfully request you to accept
my NO vote in regard to above proposal."
Mr. Duane Prairi� 489 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he was sure the reason all
the neighbors were at the meeting was because they were concerned with the
way their neighborhood looks. From the discussion, it sounded like a lot
things were very unclear as to what was actually going to happen. He stated
t�ey are concerned because there are no buildings of this type in the
neighborhood, and they also want to protect the looks of their co�ununity.
Ms. Gabel stated it was clear tfiai tFiey cannot legally grant tFiis special use
permit reqt�est based on the stated use for tfie accessory bvi7ding.
Mr. Asproth presented a petition signed by 13 neigfibors who were in favor of
SUP #83-11. (One neighbor has asked to be removed.)
�
�
�
r'1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETiNG : NOVEMBER 9;�1983 � PAGE 5
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the record the
petit n presented by the petitioner, the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Carlton Holerud
dated Nov. 9, 1983, and the letter from Mr. Miles Gerard dated Nov. 9, 1983.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabe7 declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Ms. Schnabel stated it appears the Planning Commission cannot grant this
special use permit request based on the way the petitioner has presented his
proposal, because it would not fall within t�e City's zoning guidelines.
Mr. Oquist stated he thought the petitioner could add a structure onto the
house that would be acceptable to everyone and would be pleas�ng to look at.
Ms. Gabel stated she wanted the petitioner to understand that even if the
neighbors were in agreement, the Planning Commission could not grant the
specia] use permit request because of the intended use for the building.
MOTION by Ms. Gabe�, seconded 6y Mr. Saba, to close t�e pu6lic hearing on
��8�-11 by Carl A. Asproth.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel declared the motion
^ carried unanimously.
MOTION b Ms. Gabel seconded b Mr. 0 uist, to recommend to Cit Council
en a o S ec�� se ermit, 8� , y ar , sprot ;.per ect on
. of t e ri e �t o e to a ow �t e�cohstruCt on o a
� secon accessor bui din a 26 b 0 etac e aPa e' on ot , oc 5
Rice Creek Terrace, Plat 4, the same�being 470 Rice Cree errace ..,
for the followin reasons:
. 1. The Plannin Commission cannot le all rant this re uest
� because of the intende use of second accessor ui in .
2. The proposed building is not com�a i_e with t e neig or ood.
Ms. Gabel stated she did not fee7 the petitioner's plan had been very well
thought out. An architect should be consulted so this can be done in a
manner tF�at wou7d be compatible with tF�e neigh6orhood and the existing
structure.
Mr. Oquist stated they had determined that the second accessory building
could only be 800 sq. ft., rather than the 1,040 sq, ft. being proposed.
He agreed that the plan wasn't well planned. Even without the intended use,
this structure does not fit the plan.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated this special use permit would go to City Council on
n November 21.
PLAN:IING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 9, 1983 PAGE 6 ,.�
Mr. Boardman stated he would also suggest to the petitioner that, based on
the new information brought out at this �eting, it would be very hard for
Staff to take this request to City Council as it is. Staff was not aware
of the addition on the back of the house and what the actual square footage
of the house is. They would need a survey before this goes to City Council.
He stated the petitioner may even want to considPr witfidrawing this request
and consider a different development that is alloived within the City Codes.
2. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 27, 1983, ENERGY CON0�9ISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Sept. 27, 1983,
n�ergy Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote, al] voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel dec]ared the motion
carried unanimously,
3. RECEIVE OCTOBER 13� i983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AlJTF10RITY 1�INUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded 6y Mr. Goodspeed, to receive the Oct. 13, 1983,
oA—using & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel declared the motion
carried unanimous]y. ^
4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 17, 1983� PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: �
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Goodspeed, to receive the Oct. 17, 7983,
a�-rTcs & Recreation Comnission minutes.
Mr. Kondrick stated that on page 14, the Commission had made a motion
recommending that "the City of Fridley enter into an agreement with the
Nort6east Chamber Orchestra with an upper limit of five concerts in the
City of Fridley for the 1984 year at $150/concert; and with the Fridley
City Band for six concerts in the park with an upper limit of nine total
concerts in the City of Fridley at $150/concert". He stated three members
voted for the motion, one voted against tF�e motion, and one member abstained.
Mr. Kondrick stated that in a previous decision on Sept. 27, 1982, by the
Parks & Recreation Commission to underwrite the cost of music and supplies
and underwrite 1/4 of the directors' salaries for the Northeast Chamber and
City Band with a phase-out of the directors' salaries, the Commission did
not fee7 they had considered the overall plan of the Parks & Recreation
Cortmission which is to provide eniertainment and recreational programs for
all and perhaps the omission of some funds for that particular type of
activity was overlooked.
Ms. Gabe] stated she agreed the City needed more culture. She had looked
through the Parks & Recreation brochure a�d also became a little angry about
the statement that the Parks;& Recreation Department is totally sports-oriented. /'�
That was not a fair statement. She stated the $30 fee/person set by the
�
��'1
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; NOVEMBER 9, 1983' PAGE 7
Northeast Chamber was not even $3/month, and she really felt it was a dis-
proportionate amoun� compared to what people are required to pay to parti-
cipate in any activity through parks and recreation. A good example was
volle,y�ball and fiasketha7l fees whicfi range from $5Q-285 to participate.
Ms. Gabel stated s[�e has a child wFio plays an instrument and also plays in
sports so she knows about the cost of the instrument, music lessons, and the
expense of it. Then, when the child participates in a sport with the FYSA,
there are quite a few expenses. There is an FYSA family fee of $5, a$16-18
participation fee, and for one sport, it was $60 for used equipment. That
totalled $80 for 3-4 months. In addition, the FYSA litera�ly demands a lot
of volunteer ti� from people who participate. She stated sfie also belongs
to a lot of other organizations, and it is her feeling that if these organi�
zations want to exist badly enough, they will exist. She did not think it
was bad that the City help support these two organizations, but she did think
they were not doing enough to contribute to their own survival.
Ms. Gabe7 stated it is the disproportionate amount of funds that really
bothered her. Last time, they talked about certain other organizations that
had their funding cut out totally by the City.
Mr. Kondrick stated that, although it may be true that funds have stopped for
other programs, the Parks & Recreation Commission cannot concern themse]ves
with those. That is not the Parks & Recreation Correnission's function. It is
a concern to the Commission as people 7iving in Frid7ey, but the Parks &
Recreation Comnission's job as a commission is to provide opportunity for
recreation in Fridley. That is really what the issue is here.
Ms. Gabel stated she did not dispute the fee, but what these two organizations
have done is to find a new way for the City to fund them without having to put
forth much effort.
Mr. Oquist stated he wondered what paying the Northeast Chamber and City Band
would do to their amateur status. He wondered if they were getting enough
Fridley people to watch these concerts to imake the $150/concert worthwhi]e.
Mr. Goodspeed stated he agreed wi�h Ms. Gabel. These people do play for their
own enjoyment, and if they don't get money from the City, they wi71 find it
somewhere.
UPON A VOICE YOTE, ALL YOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MINUTES
RECEIYED.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVE�BER 9, 1983 PAGE 8 �`�
5. RECEIVE OCTOBER 18, 1983,�ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION �INUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded br Mr. Kondrick, to recei�e t�e Oct. 18, 1983,
nE""v onmental Quality Cormoission minutes.
Upon a yoice vote� all voting aye, Cfiairwoman Schnafie7 dec]ared the motion
carried unanimously.
6. RECEIVE OCTOBER 25, 1983; APPEALS COMMISSION �INUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Sa6a, to receive the Oct. 25, 1983,
pl�peaTs Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote�, all voti.ng aye, Chairwanan Scfinahel declared the motion
carried unanimous7y.
7. RECEIVE OCTOBER 25,�1983, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Oct. 25, 1983,
n�ergy Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote. all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel declared tF►e motion
carried unanimously. '`��
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabel declared the November 9, 1983, P7anning
Comnission meeting adjourned at 10:]5 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyn e Saba
Recording Secretary
�
/ �
CARiTON S. HOLERUD
456 Rice Creek Terr.
Fridley, Minn. 55432
Nov. 9. 19�3
To whom it may concern:
In regards to the reauest of Mr. Carl
Asproth to construct a 40' x 26' building
in his back yard at 470 Rice Creek Terr.
Fridley.
As next
Holerud and
opposed to a
%'1 constructed.
n
door home owners. I Carlton
my wife Mary P. Holerud are
building of this size bein�
You ru ,
Carlton S. Hol d
C
r \
1
November 9, '1983
To: PLANNING COM,^:ISSION _____�— _ -
_ __- -.-- __. _. Dear Sirs; --- --------- --� -- - - - -
In reviewing proposal of a special use permit SP # 83-'�1, --- ---
by_Carl A. Asproth for construction of a second building -- -
� �26 ft. X 40 ft.) at 470 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. , I feel
I was Nisinformed at time of signing neighborhood petition. _
� I request my signature be void from said neighborhood petition,
and respECtfully request you to accept my NO vote in regard
to above proposal. _ __ _ _
. . . - - ^,
Respectfully, -
--- - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - /�. �'t� ��� .
_ - Miles G. 2rd
-� - 506 Rice Creek Terrace
_ _ HomE Owner
--- - - - - _ �
- - - - -- - - ---- - ---- - -- -- - - - -- ^
�"�
�../. .-�/ �t /
i � . • / n/�
�,-, �-.
�
�/ `� � /�' !'i� v oR o 1" �.Qr �`T � �°�` -s � �3 -1/ (o
r
��/�' � � �.f f� e%� �4 �PG/ / o N � Q s� D �// .3/ f� O �
� � p �y.—
� /�"R / �L P � y ? d G�. ! � t (' �E' << � f �' -� �P i9 c � n ._.-
/
2' .
�
�'
.
�
�
.l� � .
�� � ' l 2� �L
�.
� � � i1� � .r�.'
� �--�. - 9�� S- � � � i � �-� �L 1'�e � �,-
. � 75�-7��,�?. �.
:�, � 6726 N.�.�r�r�.
�
.
�
�r�c �h, ��i ��
' v �,�
//
II 2
%! �
// �
.
` �
r) `� /
-�C .,�,�, � �
� � , � �i l.�-' +. C' �i �-
� ��/� 7Tr� �T •��'
/ /
`� — � l � 02
` `��- ��- G� -� � C.� ?"1 � � � .z
, � _ ��, �l �
, ,,,G.� � ,
�l � u�� �, 7f� ,��-� , � � i� a
���� S��S- .�c� R-� f� �
i/ z-