PL 05/30/1990 - 71324
;�
PI,APNIAG COl�ISSION LKEETING AGEIIDA
iiEDPBSDAY, MAY 30, 1990
7:30 P.rI.
Public Copy
-�
�
' City of Fridley
,
a
A G E N D A
PLANNING COIrIIrlISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1990 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
CALL TO ORDER•
ROLL CALL•
APPROVE PLANNING CONa+lISSION MINUTES: May 16, 1990
PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #90-06,
BY ROBERT BUSITY FOR SEARS OUTLET STORE:
Per Section 205.15.1.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
exterior storage of materials on Lot 1, Block 1, Shorewood Plaza,
generally located at 1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT L.S. #90-02, BY MILAN BOZONY: To
split Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights, in order to create the
following two parcels:
East Parcel: Lot 2, except the East 10 feet thereof, and all of
Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, except
for the South 25 feet thereof for 79th Way N.E. , and Lot 1 ar►d that
part of Lot 2 lying Easterly of the Westerly 10 feet, as measured
at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot
2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota.
West Parcel: Lots 3, 4, and 5 and the Westerly 10 feet of Lot 2,
as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line
of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
All generally located west of 479 - 79th Way N.E.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendinq Section 205.17.03.0 (the
M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District) and Section 205.18.03.0 (the
M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District) of the Fridley Zoning
Ordinance, by adding the following lanquage regarding lot coverage
requirements:
(4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased up
to a maximum of ten percent (10�) of the permitted lot area
with a special use permit. In addition to the requirements
of this Section and the factors identified in Section
205.05.04 to evaluate special use permit requests, the City
Planning Commission Agenda
May 30, 1990
Page 2
shall consider the following factors in determining the effect
of the increase in lot coverage:
(a) For existing developed properties, the total amount of
existing hardsurface areas shall be evaluated to
determine whether a reduction in the total building and
parking coverage can be achieved.
(b) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance
requirements are met, including but not limited to,
parking, storm water management, and landscaping.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amending the following Sections
of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance to permit nine foot wide parking
stalls in certain districts, and to require parking spaces to be
double-striped:
1. DEFINITIONS
205.03.55. Parking Stall.
A ten (10) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1)
automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and
permits ingress and egress of an automobile. ParkinQ stalls mav
be nine (9) feet in width for uses snecified elsewhere in this
code. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk, the length
may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet. Parkina stalls shall be
striped in accordance with the desian on file in the office of the
City Engineer.
1. R-3 DistriCt
205.09.07.A.(3) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width.
2. M-1 District
205.17.05.D.(13) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for
manufacturincr uses warehouse and storacre uses, speculative
industrial buildings and parking lots for lonQ term emplovee
parkina.
3. M-2 District
205.18.05.D.�13� Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for
manufacturing uses, warehouse and storaqe uses, sDeculative
industrial buildinqs and parking lots for lonQ term emplovee
garkina.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 30, 1990
Page 3
4. B-2 DIBTRICT
205.22.6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
All performance standards for uses in this district shall be
comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other
districts. Parkina space sizes may be reduced to nine l9) feet in
width upon approval of a svecial use vermit.
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 22,
1990
OTHER BUSINESS•
ADJOURN:
�LANNINa COl�II68ION MESTING. MAY 16. 1990 PAG$ 2
is directly to the north of the property, and the Rnights of
Columbus is directly to the south of the property.
Ms. McPherson stated that currently on the site is a two-story
office building that was occupied by Suburban Engineering from 1965
to 1989. The parcel has been zoned R-3, General Multiple Family,
since 1958. The first Suburban Engineering building was
constructed in 1960. At that time, the zoning code allowed office
and lodge uses as permitted uses within the R-3 district. The
Suburban Engineering building was destroyed by the 1965 tornado
and was reconstructed. The Rnights of Columbus constructed their
building in 1965. At that time, office and lodge uses were still
permitted uses within the R-3 district. It was not until 1969 that
the zoning code was amended to exclude these uses from the R-3
zoning district. These uses are now only permitted in C-2, General
Business, or higher zoning districts.
Ms. McPherson stated the Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 38 is
proposing to remodel the existing building in order to provide an
assembly hall, office space, and kitchen/bar facilities. The
remodeling is necessary in order to accommodate the activities that
will occur on the site. These activities include the following:
1. '�Birthday suppers" once a month
2. Dances on Friday and Saturday evenings
3. Membership meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays and
first and third Thursdays of each month
Ms. McPherson stated the birthday suppers and the dances are for
members only and are used for raising funds for the Moose Lodge.
The Moose Lodge expects 50-100 persons to attend these functions.
Currently the site provides 39 parking spaces; however, the parking
lot does not comply with the zoning code setback requirements. For
the uses proposed, the zoning code would require 42 spaces on site.
Ms. McPherson stated the Moose Lodge has approached the owner of
the Sunliner Motel, Mr. Warren Paulson, about the possibility of
using that lot for overflow parking; but Mr. Paulson has indicated
that he needs his parking area to provide space for over-the-road
truckers who use his facility during the week and weekends.
Ms. McPherson stated the Rnights of Columbus received a special use
permit in 1988 to expand their parking lot onto the vacant parcel
north of their building. It may be that activities at the Knights
of Columbus may prevent the Moose Lodge from sharing these parking
facilities.
Ms. McPherson stated the Moose Lodge conducted a neighborhood
meeting on May 9. In addition to the lack of parking available on
site, the neighbors expressed concern about the number of traffic
PLANNINQ CO1rIIKI88ION MEETING, MAY 16, 1990 PAGE 3
accidents at the intersection of 68th Avenue and Highway 65. Staff
investigated this concern and found that in the last five years,
there have only been seven accidents at that intersection and no
accidents have occurred at that intersection since 1987.
Ms. McPherson stated that when the City evaluates rezoning
requests, the City needs to look at the compatibility of the
proposed use or the proposed zoning district with the surrounding
uses and districts. The surrounding uses and zoning districts are
of a residential character and rezoninq this property from R-3,
Multiple Dwelling, to C-2, General Business, will create the
opportunity for more intense uses to occur on this site, should the
Moose Lodge vacate this building. The proposed use also changes
the character of the neighborhood from an office use where the
hours of operation occurred primarily between 8:00-9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. to an assembly use where the hours of operation will
occur in the evening hours from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Ms. McPherson stated that in order to bring the property into
compliance with the C-2, General Business, district zoning
standards, the City would have to grant seven variances. The most
important variances would be those for the parking setbacks. If
the City denied those parking variances, the site would only
provide 24 spaces.
Ms. McPherson stated that although the Rnights of Columbus building
is also in an R-3 zone, they do meet many of the C-2, General
Business, district zoning standards, the most important of which
is the 15 foot buffer strip between the parking area and the
residential area.
Ms. McPherson stated that due to the incompatibility of the
proposed use and zoning district with the surrounding neighborhood,
the increased traffic and the potential for difficult traffic
access onto Highway 65, staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the rezoning request, ZOA #90-04.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there are any plans to generally rezone this
whole area.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has talked about rezoning the properties
north of Rice Creek from the industrial use to a business use,
because those properties are more of a retail nature. However,
staff has not expiored the possibility of rezoning the property in
question and the Knights of Columbus property to anything other
than what they are zoned now.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff looked at this property relative to
keeping it as an office use. If so, what variances might be
required if was occupied as an office use again or what the
implications of its present condition are? Can it meet the
required parking for an office use with the current R-3 zoning?
PLANNING COlrIIriI88ION MEETINa, MAY 16. 1990 PAG$ 4
Ms. McPherson stated she did not analyze the parking spaces
required; however, due to the fact that there was an office use on
the site up to one year aqo, the property would maintain its legal
nonconforming status if it was occupied again with an office use.
At that time, staff would have to look at the number of parking
spaces needed for a particular office use.
Ms. Dacy stated there is approximately 9,000 sq. ft. on the site.
Dividinq that by 250 sq. ft. per parking space, 36 parking spaces
would be required for an office use and there are that many spaces
on the site.
Mr. Joel Cason, 4133 5th Street N.E., stated he is representing the
Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 38. He stated this Lodge is the
second oldest lodge in the country. They have been in existence
over 85 years. They have about 900 members, but only about 100-
125 attend the bigger functions. They average 85-100 people on a
Friday or Saturday night. They are civic-minded group and have
helped out various orqanizations in the northeast community.
Mr. Cason stated they were located in Minneapolis at 14th/Monroe
Street behind Banks, but the City of Minneapolis has purchased
their building and they must find a new facility. They are looking
for a fresh start and the opportunity to grow. They looked at
several locations before finding this site. This is a building
they can rehab but yet is not too expensive. It is a good location
also because it is on the busline, and many of their members do not
drive anymore. They would not expect to remain in this new
location a qreat length of time, and maybe within 5-6 years, they
would need to look for or build a larger facility.
Mr. Cason stated they have approached the owner of the Sunliner
Motel and the Rnights of Columbus for overflow parking, and it was
his understanding at that time that there was no problem using the
Knights of Columbus lot for overflow parking. However, now that
doesn't seem to be the case, and there could be a parking problem
when both facilities have functions.
Mr. Cason stated that at the neighborhood meeting, the neighBors
expressed concern about noise. He stated they plan to rehab the
building and would put in the insulation needed so there would not
be a noise problem. They might consider putting the dancing down-
stairs which would help with the noise problem. He stated they
have been in the same location for 35 years with adjacent
residential uses and never had any problems with the police or
neighbors. The Moose Lodge is more of a private club. It is not
a bar. They would be good neighbors.
Ms. Schreiner asked where the Moose Lodge members are located.
0
� LANNINa CONIIrtI88ION MEETING MAY 16 1990 PAGE 5
Mr. Cason atated their members comer from Northeast Minneapolists,
Hilltop, Blaine, and a large numb
Mr. Frend Wadsworth of Park Realty stated that he represents the
owner of the building, Robert Mender, who lives in California.
He
stated that they have been trying to find some other use for the
building, but think the use of the building by the Moo=adLodf �wthe
be a good use for it and will probably be an upg
building, despite the fact that some variances are needed. He
would hate to see this rezoning turned down for an office use that
might be able to use the building the way it is.
Mr. Richard French, representing the Knights of Columbus, stated
there must have been some misunderstanding because the Knights of
Columbus will not be able to provide overflow parking for the Moose
Lodge. He stated the Knights of Columbus spent $100,000 last year
to acquire an adjacent lot fo a d put in a privacy fence between
They did extensive landscaping
It is not possible on a Friday
them and the residential neighbors. for both their halls plus some
or Saturday night to provide parking
for another lodge. If the Moose Lodge can provide their own
parking on site, then the Rnights of Columbus would not mind having
them for neighbors.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that if the Knights of Columbus parking is
full, where does the overflow go?
Mr. French stated that their parking facility has proved t have
adequate. There have only been 1-2 exceptions, and they
received special permissiavin r�on the westcside of thet service
allowed to park of f the p g
drive.
Mr. Rollie Jergens, 54th Av��n a�outh 28 years.M� Fridley eis eabnice
stated he has lived here f arentl the parking is
area, and he appreciates living here• Athe rezoning. They had
the basis of the problem in approving
thought there would be so but that does notrseem to be thetcasef
Columbus for excesoneaout of its way to be as beneficial to this
Their lodge has g
area as the Rnights of Columbus. Theyt oue ht dtheY wouldt have rno
the City of Minneapolis, and they g erfect. A lot
problem in Fridley. Financially, this building is p oing
of their members �k n in there is no much they�can doeabout gt•
to be short on pa 9,
Ms. Viola Porter, 6870 Channel Road N.E• � s ark ngh lotive dShectis
behind the old Suburban Engineering p
representing herself, her husband, and some of her neighbors.
Their major concern is that this is just not an appropriate use for
this property adjoining a residential neighborhood. As she
understands it, the Moose Lodge would be open seven days a week
PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTINQ. MAY 16, 1990 PAGE 6
from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. This means constant traffic, parking,
and noise. There is inadequate parking, and they cannot get any
additional parking from the Sunliner Motel or the Knights of
Columbus. The Lodge's membership ranges from 400 - 1,200. Any
Moose Lodge member, nationwide, can qo to any Moose Lodge in the
county. She stated the Moose Lodge has looked at other
alternatives to gain more parking, and one alternative is to cut
down the bank at the back end of her property and put in a
retaining wall. That is not acceptable to them, because then there
would be no barrier or buffer zone between her property and the
Moose Lodge property. The other alternative was the construction
of a two-story parking ramp which would also be totally
unacceptable right next to a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Porter stated the residents on Lucia Lane and Channel Road are
opposed to this rezoning and the use of the property by the Moose
Lodge, and she submitted a petition to the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to receive
Petition No. 6-1990.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON BAHA DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIIBLY.
Mr. Bill Wharton, 6887 Channel Road N.E., stated that he has lived
here for 20 years. He stated he objected to the use of this
property by the Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 38 or any similar
usage. He has nothing against the Moose Lodge. They provide a
commendable service to the community, but he just did not believe
that a lodge is a proper use for that location. The neighbors are
concerned about parking; they are concerned about turning that area
of Fridley into a"booze strip". There is already a facility in
this area that serves liquor. This is a residential area, and he
commended the Planning Department staff for their recommendation
to the Planning Commission of denial of this rezoning request.
Mr. Forrest Welton, 4900 - 4th Street N.E. (Moose Lodge member),
stated the Moose Lodge locally and abroad support MooseHeart which
takes care of women and children if something happens to the
husband or father who was a Moose Lodqe member, and MooseHaven for
the elderly. It is a working man's lodge; and it is for the people
by the people. It is not a prosperous organization.
Mr. Lyle Quam, 6895 Channel Road N.E. , stated he has lived here
since 1954. He stated he has nothing against the Moose Lodge. His
father was a member of the Moose Lodge for about five years. They
are concerned about the parking; and when there is a big function,
where will the people park? The streets are too narrow for
parking. Another problem is the traffic. There is enough traffic
with the motel and the Rnights of Columbus. He did not believe
this property is a suitable location for a lodge.
e
0
a pLANNINa COI�IIBBION MEETING. MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 7
OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTINQ AYB, ACTZNG CHAIRPERSON BABA DECLARED
THS MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIIBLY AND THE PQBLIC HEARINa CLOSED AT
8s10 P.M.
Mr. Dahlberg stated there appears to be 45 parking spaces on the
site plan; however, the staff report says there are only 39 spaces.
There is no way of telling if these 45 spaces are in conforma�he
as far as wrecommend dafor pprov 1 bwouldn't the Mo se Lodge have
rezoning is
to bring the parkinq into compliance?
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct, or they could apply for
variances for the setbacks that currently do not meet code.
Mr. Dahlberg stated taces have t a be striped at 10 ft � x 2orftn?
setbacks, would the sp
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that if there are 39 possible parking spaces
on the site and the requirement is 42, then a es aas shown�on the
spaces. However, if there are 45 parking sp
site plan, and the requode ret irementt assuming 11 the variances
relative to the zoning �
have been granted.
Ms. Sherek stated that since there is some consideration for
reducing the parking stall requirements to 9 feet, would that apply
in this case?
Ms. Dacy stated the intent of the City Council's informal
discussion was that high volume uses would maintain the 10 foot
parking width. They did discuss the 9 foot wide stai en the
apartment buildings. This property is zoned R-3, but, q
intent of the Council's discussions, staff would require 10 foot
wide spaces on this site.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if the Moose Lodge has applied for variances,
will be applying for variances, or are they not required at this
stage?
Ms. Dacy stated the process the Moose Lodge is taking is to fi�he
see whether or not the City will even consider reZ then they
property. If the City Council does rezone the property,
are stating that the �'Z almost t redi poselthe granting of lthose
location and that would P
variances. That brings up another part of this issue and that is
that if, for some reaso e, would be a deci ,i n uon the recordeto
would fall through, ther
PLANNINa COM�IISSION MEETINd, MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 8
rezone this property to C-2. What the City will probably do and
what has been the City�s past policy is to �ithhold the second and
final reading of the rezoning until they are assured that what is
proposed for the site during the process is going to occur.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that there is no refutinq the fact that the
Moose Lodge is a reputable and welcome organization in any
community; however, this is a difficult situation from the stand-
point that it is an existing site that is limited in size to
accommodate the kind of parking requirement that would be
anticipated for a use such as a Moose Lodge in this building. It
becomes difficult to say the City does not want a Moose Lodge in
Fridley, because, in his opinion, they would probably be very
welcome. He stated that anybody that comes into or is in the
community and wants to make changes and/or modifications to their
property must conform to the given ordinances. By virtue of that,
the Planning Commission must say that the Moose Lodge at this
particular site is not appropriate due to the factors and
conditions outlined by staff.
Ms. Schreiner concurred. She stated another important factor the
Planning Commission should take into consideration is that the use
of this property by the Moose Lodge would change the regular use
of the site from daytime hours (which it has been for the last 20
years) to night time hours. There will be more evening traffic and
noise when people are at home trying to enjoy the peace and quiet
of their residential homes.
Ms. Sherek stated she had two points to make: (1) If this was a
special use permit request specific to the user, this might be a
different decision. But, if they rezoned this piece of property
to C-2; and, if at some point in time, the Moose Lodge moved out
in 4-5 years, they will not have the level of control over future
owners or tenants as they do with the R-3 zoning. (2) She lives
very close to the Fridley American Legion, so she knows about
parking deficits. Some evenings it is difficult to get down her
street because of the traffic and parking problems. She stated
this is a difficult decision for her because her parents have been
members of this particular Moose Lodge for over 40 years. However,
she did not think this proposal by the Moose Lodge is appropriate
for this site.
Mr. Saba stated that any request to rezone property from
residential to commercial should be taken very seriously, and they
should look at the long range plans for the City. He stated he is
also concerned about the hours of operation and the traffic in the
eveninq. He also agreed that the Moose Lodge is a very reputable
organization and an asset to any community. He hoped they could
find another location in Fridley.
MoTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to
City Council denial of rezoning, ZoA #90-04, by the Loyal Order of
PLANNINa COMMI68ION MEETINa, MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 9
Moose Lodge No. 38 to rezone the north 95 feet of Lots 14 and 15,
Brookview Addition, except the west 22 feet of the north 95 feet
of Lots 14 and 15, Brookview Addition, and also the south 95 feet
of Lots 14 and 15, Brookview Addition, except the west 22 feet of
the south 95 feet, from R-3, Ge�eral Multiple Dwelling, to C-2,
General Business, qenerally located at 6875 Highway 65 N.E.
IIPON A VOIC]3 VOTB � ALL VOTINd AYE � ACTINa CBAIRPERBON BABA DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. Dacy stated that at the June 4 meeting, the City Council will
establish a public hearing for June 18, 1990.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION SAV #90-02. BY THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY•
To vacate that part of Broad Avenue lying north of the
westerly extension of the southeast line of Lot 26, Block C,
Riverview Heights and lying southerly of the westerly
extension of the northwest line of said Lot 26, Block C,
Riverview Heights, generally located north of Lafayette Street
and south of Mississippi Boulevard.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of this meeting is to gather as
much testimony and information from the surrounding property owners
as possible. The Fridley City Manager is working with the Coon
Rapids City Manager regarding this issue, so staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission not take any action at this meeting,
but rather just gather information from the neighborhood.
Ms. McPherson stated the City of Fridley is proposing to vacate
that portion of the Broad Avenue right-of-way which lies north of
Lafayette Street in Fridley and ends at the Coon Rapids/Fridley
border. This is in response to a letter the City received from a
neighbor and property owner, Gerald Reierson, 621 Lafayette Street,
who offered to purchase Lot 26 from the City for approximately
$500. The City is looking at possibly combining Lot 26 with the
vacated right-of-way to create a buildable lot for a single family
home.
Ms. McPherson stated the site is currently zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as is the surrounding properties to the north, east, and
south. Currently, within the right-of-way, the neighbor to the
west in Coon Rapids has fenced and maintained the public right-of-
way. In addition, there is a foot path along the east line of the
right-of-way which connects to a five foot bituminous bikeway/
walkway which the City of Coon Rapids constructed in 1974.
Ms. McPherson stated the previously mentioned fence was constructed
in 1971. In 1973, the City of Fridley received a similar vacation
request from Kay Olson, the previous owner of Lot 26, before the
City of Fridley acquired it as a tax forfeit lot. This vacation
was never completed. In 1974, the City of Coon Rapids proposed to
PLANNING CO1�lIBBION MEETING. MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 10
reopen the Broad Avenue right-of-way and constructed a street
within the right-of-way from Mississippi Boulevard to Lafayette
Street. At that time, the Fridley City Council received two
petitions regarding this subject, one which opposed the reopening
and one which was in aqreement with the reopening. Obviously, the
street was not constructed and the present situation exists.
Ms. McPherson stated the City of Fridley has four options it can
explore to resolve this issue:
1. Leave the property as it is now.
2. The City could vacate the right-of-way and combine it
with I�t 26 to create a buildable lot. This buildable
lot would then need to be declared "excess" and conveyed
to a new property owner.
3. The City could vacate the right-of-way and sell it to the
westerly neighbor who has been maintaining the right-of-
way.
4. The City could choose to work with Coon Rapids in
extending Broad Avenue from Lafayette Street to
Mississippi Boulevard.
.. Ms. McPherson stated that normally a vacated right-of-way is
divided in half, and half of the right-of-way goes to one property
on one side and the other half goes to the property on the other
side. However, in this instance, since the right-of-way is
entirely within the City of Fridley and is in one single plat, if
the City vacated the right-of-way, it would accrue to Lot 26.
Ms. McPherson stated that whichever option the City of Fridley
chooses, the City of Coon Rapids Planning staff has recommended
that some type of pedestrian access remain between Coon Rapids and
Fridley. The path on the Fridley side is heavily worn indicating
that children and adults use it to access the Coon Rapids park
which is located at 85th/East River Road and vice versa for Coon
Rapids residents visiting Fridley and Fridley parks.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is not making any recommendation at this
time. They are recommending the Planning Commission conduct this
vacation as a public hearing and take testimony from those in the
audience, but not take any action.
Ms . McPherson stated the Engineering Department has recommended the
City maintain a 15 foot utility/sewer easement along the west
right-of-way line. She believed a bikeway/walkway easement could
be incorporated into that.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that if this right-of-way was split as is
typical when a public right-of-way is vacated, and half was added
PLANNINa COI�IIBBION ME$TING MAY 16 1990 PAGE il
to Lot 26 and half added to Lot 21 in Coon Rapids, would Lot 26
still be a buildable lot?
Mr. Michele stated it would not be. It would still below the 9,000
sq. ft. minimum buildable lot size.
Mr. Dahlberg asked the intention of the City of Coon Rapids
relative to the remainder of the right-of-way between Mississippi
Boulevard and this area that is question?
Ms. McPherson stated the neighbor to the northwest currently has
a concrete driveway constructed within the public right-of-way, and
the bituminous pathway runs along the easternmost right-of-way
line. At this time, staff does not know the true intentions of the
City of Coon Rapids, however, they know that the Coon Rapids City
Manager is going to be discussing this item on May 22, 1999, with
the�Coon Rapids City Council in response to a letter the Fridley
City Manager, William Burns, sent to him raising some questions
about this issue.
Mr. Jerry LaPlante, 604 Lafayette Street, stated that he was at the
Coon Rapids City Council meeting when the owner of the west lot
fenced off that property. The neighbors protested, and the City
Council made the owner put in a gate. The owner also built a slab
for parking, and the City Council said he could use that land, but
he did not own it.
Mr. LaPlante stated he understood that Mr. Jerry Reierson has
offered to buy Lot 26. He stated he found it ironic that all these
years that lot has sat there doing nothing; and now when the City
receives a request from someone who wants to buy it, suddenly the
City has other options for that lot. Why not give it to the
neighbor who is taking good care of it? He stated the neighborhood
uses this walking path a lot. They go to the park in Coon Rapids
where there is a ballfield. He doesn't want to have his children
walking along East River Road where there is no sidewalk. He
thought Jerry Reierson is going to be an asset to their
neighborhood and he should be allowed to buy that lot.
Mr. Allen Chiodo, 8410 Palm Street, Coon Rapids, stated he is also
the Chairperson of the Coon Rapids Parks Commission. He stated
this is one neighborhood, not the Fridley neighborhood and the Coon
Rapids neighborhood. Their children go to school together, and it
is the Adams community. The path is a major thoroughfare for their
children, and without that path, their children would be forced
onto East River Road which would be an unsafe situation. Some type
of path has to be maintained in this area. If there is no pathway,
then the spirit of community would be broken.
Ms. Shelly Brown, 8330 Broad Avenue, stated her home faces the
pathwae h avil eS �He=ras veng y ar told gdaughter usesh the tPath
is us Y
PLANNING COl�I88ION MEBTING, MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 12
frequently as do many neighborhood children. But, it is not just
children. There are a lot of adults to use that pathway. This is
a nice neighborhood. It is a nice neighborhood to take walks to
the river, and there is only one pathway from the north end of
Broad to the south end of Broad without going onto East River Road.
Maintaining that access is very important, not only to Fridley, but
to Coon Rapids.
Mr. Rich Bunin stated he is the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Dennis
Wetterlind, who are the owr�ers of the property in Coon Rapids
located to the west of the area being discussed. It is his
clients' position that whatever is done, they would like to be
allowed to acquire that property up to the fence line they have
established. They have no objection to the path, and the path in
the location is lies now; in fact, would like to see the path
remain in its present location.
Mr. Bunin stated his clients have used that property as their yard
and have maintained it for at least 17 years. Of the options
discussed by staff, the only option that really makes sense is to
allow his clients to acquire that property, perhaps to allow Mr.
Reierson who has the property located to the east to acquire the
other portion of the property that comes up to the path on the east
side.
Mr. Bunin stated it is his understanding that there are utility
poles that go right across the property approximately where the
path is located. From an economic standpoint, how economical is
it going to be for the City of Fridley to vacate and try to sell
this property as a buildable lot? Would it, in fact, be a
buildable lot? Also, in terms of this fence, obviously if the path
is to remain, and there seems to be strong consensus from the
neighbors that they want a path to remain, that nothing can be
built unless the path is moved. So, there is going to be some
expense if that option is approved. If the fence was moved over
to the west which would be closer to his clients' property, they
would strongly object to that and he would take whatever action is
necessary to protect his clients' interest. There would probably
be a significant expense to the City in making that type of move
as well.
Mr. Bunin stated that as far as the Coon Rapids property which is
located to the north, his clients have their driveway on that
property, and that was done with the City of Coon Rapids'
knowledge. He had a copy of a letter from the City Manager of Coon
Rapids to his clients dated September 14, 1971, which addressed the
construction of the driveway. The letter stated: "It is further
understood that it is your intention to construct a concrete
driveway from where the City's contractor leaves off to meet your
existing concrete driveway near your house, that you will grass the
remaining portion of Broad Street adjacent to your property, and
extend the fence at the south line of your property." His clients
,
' pLANNINa COMMI68ION MEETING. MAY 16. 1990 PAaE 13
did fence in the south portion of this property and also on the
east portion. They have also maintained this property for many
years and has helped keep the path clear. Obviously, his clients
would take a very strong exception to any action by the City of
Coon Rapids that would affect his present driveway which is lobeind
on the property directly to the north of the property g
discussed.
Mr. Bunin stated the City of Fridley should very strongly look at
how practical it is from all aspects to really use this particular
property as a new buildable lot. He thought having two individuals
who are intereeae ton maint in the upathway, tand leverybodyl will
portions need
benef it .
Ms. McPherson stated a copy of the letter Mr. Bunin referred to
was in the Commission's agenda.
Mr. Jerry Reierson, 621 Lafayette Street (Lot 25), stated it would
greatly benefit him to be able to acquire Lot 26, so he can enlarge
his house which he cannot do now without the granting of variances .
He stated there are a lot of little houses on Broad Street, and he
would like to upgrade his little house and make it a nicer home for
the neighborhood. Right now, the size of his home is just barely
livable. He would like to see the property remain as it is, with
., the pathway open. He would like to see the pathway extended into
Coon Rapids to make a nice walkway. The neighbnse t a the ity to
area nice. He believed it would be a great exp
have the power poles m r e e� d a bu ldable ite, that are needed to
b e d o n e t o m a k e t h a t p p Y
Ms. Schreiner asked if there are any utility lines located within
the Broad Avenue right-of-way or Lot 26?
Ms. McPherson stated she could not answer that question at this
time. She would check that with the Engineest d ae 15 foot�sewer
stated the Engineering Department has requ
and utility easement along what would be the westerly line of the
right-of-way.
Ms. Sherek stated she had several questions she would like to ask
of staff:
1. If the City vacates the right-of-way and combines it with
Lot 26 to creat�e�s ofdsquare�fo tage?will the size of
that lot be i
2. How will theot�O � alots � int the r area? b Will b it lbe
compare to
approximately the same size or larger?
�LANNINa COI�iIBBION MEETING. MAY 16. 1990 PAG$ 14
3. What is going to be the cost to move the pathway and the
overhead utility poles in comparison to the market value
of the proposed lot?
4. What is the actual market value of Lot 26 and of the
vacated right-of-way, if the City just sold Lot 26 to
Mr. Reierson, vacated all the walking path on the right-
of-way, and sold the rest to Mr. Wetterlind?
Mr. Dahlberg agreed with Ms. Sherek that it is important to have
information relative to the value of this property--either split
into two pieces with the path running through the middle or as a
single parcel.
Mr. Dahlberg stated Mr. Bunin, the Wetterlinds� attorney, made the
statement about a letter from the City of Coon Rapids regarding the
construction of a driveway by Mr. and Mrs. Wetterlind, a copy of
which the Planning Commissioners have in their agenda. He stated
he would like to read one paragraph that states: "You should also
be aware if you have not been so advised already that whatever you
might construct within the public right-of-way would be done at
your own risk and you would not be entitled to any compensation for
its removal if that should become necessary in the future." So,
the residents did construct that driveway at their own risk.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would also like to know the status of Lot
27. That appears to be a lot similar to Lot 26.
Ms. Dacy stated that lot is in the City of Coon Rapids. According
to the maps, it is tied into Lots 27 - 32, so apparently it is
under the ownership of the person who owns the house right at that
corner to the east.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that any action that may be taken by the City
of Fridley relative to this right-of-way, will that impact what
the City of Coon Rapids could or should do with the right-of-way
as well?
Ms. Dacy stated that by virtue of the fact that both City Managers
are also discussing this and that the Coon Rapids City Council will
also discuss these same options, the City of Fridley�s goal is to
come to some type of joint decision.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that, potentially, if the City of Coon Rapids
was to vacate that Broad Avenue right-of-way from Mississippi
Boulevard to the Fridley/Coon Rapids city limits, by law as stated
in the staff report, one-half of it �aould go to Lot 27 and one-half
would qo to Lot 21.
Ms. Dacy stated she will have to check the plat maps. North of
the city limits, it appears that these lots in Coon Rapids are
still part of the Riverview Heights Plat. If this is the case,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME$TING. MAY 16. 1990 PAaE 15
that entire area could possibly revert to the owners on the east
side.
Mr. Dahlberq stated that whatever decision is made, it is apparent
from the testimony they have heard at the meeting, it is extremely
important to maintain that pedestrian walkway in whatever shape or
form it may take.
Mr. Saba stated that for the safety of children and adults walking
and biking, he would like to see Fridley continue the bituminous
path all the way through there and not leave it as a dirt path.
Ms. Sherek stated she stated she looked at this property. She
stated she has expressed this philosophy before, and she would like
to express it again. She stated she just did not feel that the
City has to plot and build on every square inch in Fridley. This
property is very nice. The neighbors have taken good care of it.
Sure, it would be nice to put another piece of property on the tax
roles, but she did not think vacating the right-of-way and
combining it with Lot 26 to make a buildable lot would do anything
for this neighborhood. She liked the option of selling the
property to the two owners on either side and maintaining the
pathway, maybe making it an official pathway for the convenience
and safety of those using it.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed.
Ms. Schreiner stated she also looked at the property. It is so
beautiful and green and looks just like another park. The
neighbors are doing a wonderful job in maintaining it.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to table
consideration of vacation, SAV #90-02, by the City of Fridley until
a future meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERBON 88ERER
DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRISD IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that when this comes before the Planning
Commission again for a decision, the neighbors will be renotified.
3. RFCEIVE APRIL 2 1990 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
OM TION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the
April 2, 1990, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPER80N BHERER
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. RECEIVE APRIL 10, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MINUTES:
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 16
OM TION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the
April 10, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
minutes.
Mr. Saba stated that Earth Day, April 22, at Springbrook Nature
Center was very successful. There were a lot of fun activities
for everybody. Hopefully, the spirit of Earth Day can be carried
out throughout the whole year and beyond. The Nature Center is
doing that with special programming--the first Saturday evening of
each month is going to be "Earth Day Remembered - Part 1, Part 2,"
etc."
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON BHERER
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE APRIL 18 1990 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the April
18, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON BHEAER
DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED �NANIMOQBLY.
6. RECEIVE MAY l. 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:_
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to receive the
May 1, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. �
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTINa CHAIRPERBON BHERER
DECI.ARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIIBLY.
7. RECEIVE MAY 5. 1990, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
OTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the May
5, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, ACTIN(3 CHAIRPER80N 88EREK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY.
8. RECEIVE MAY 8. 1990. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:_
OM TION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the May
8, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON BHERER
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
pLANNINa CO�ISSION ME$TINd. MAY 16. 1990 PAGE 17
Ms. Dacy stated that the June 13th Planninq Commission meeting is
during 49'er Days and is the night of the parade. Did the
Commission wish to reschedule this meeting?
It was the Commissioners preference to move that meeting to June
20, and, if possible, have that the only meeting for the month of
June.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to adjourn the
meeting. Opoa a voiae vote, all votinq aye, Actinq Chairperson
8aba declared the May i6, 1990, Planninq Commission meetinq
adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Res ectfully sub itted,
Ly aba
Recording Secretary
8 I G�- IN B 8 S 8 T
PLANNING COl�IZBBION �EETING, l �-Y < �
s i a�- sx B H 8 E T
P7.�I�TNING CO1rIIriZ68ION �ETINQ, �(.Z� �l.P , C 99U
a
� �
� � STAFF REPORT
e�.
APPEALS DATE
���QF PLAtV�NG COMNNSSION DATE : May 30, 1990
FR! DLEY CITY COI�IqL DATE AUTHOR �M/ dn
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DATA
SIZE
DENSITY
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
8� zoni%ic
u�rurEs
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSIS
FWANCIAL IMPUCATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREF�IVSNE PLAN
COMPATBIL!'TY WRH
ADJACENT USES 8 ZONIVG
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATtON
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
SP ��90-06
Bob Bushey, Manager of Sears Outlet
To allow the outside storage of five semi-truck trailer
]000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
C-3, General Shopping Center
North, East, and South- C-3, General Shopping Center;
West-Highway 65
N/A
No
No
Denial
Staff Report
SP #90-06, Sears Outlet Store
Page 2
Reguest
Bob Bushey, manager of the Sears Outlet store located at 1000 East
Moore Lake Drive N.E., is requesting that a special use permit be
granted in order to park up to 5 semi-truck trailers at the rear
of the Sears store. The legal description for this parcel is Lot
1, Block 1, Shorewood Plaza.
Site
Located on the site is the Sear store. The store recently received
a"face lift" through various outside improvements. The entire
area from Highway 65 to Central Avenue, and from 63rd Avenue to the
Shorewood Inn is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center District.
Analysis
Mr. Bushey has indicated to staff that the semi-truck trailers are
an integral part of his operation: However, Mr. Bushey signed a
building permit on October 26, 1989 which stipulated that he remove
the semi-truck trailers from the site on or before November 17,
1989 (see attached building permit). The Code Enforcement Officer,
Steve Barg, has been working with both Mr. Bushey and Mr.
�' Applebaum, owner of the parcel, on the removal of these trailers.
Mr. Bushey was told that he could either remove the trailers as
per the building permit stipulation, or apply for a special use
permit (see attached letters).
Section 205.15.07.D.(5) of the Fridley Zoninq Code requires the
screening of loading areas adjacent to the public right-of-way.
As the rear of the Sears building can be seen from the Highway 65
right-of-way, the code would require that this area be screened.
However, as this area also serves as a parking area and traffic
access to the parcel, there is no efficient way to screen the
proposed trailers from the public right-of-way in order to comply
with the code requirement. The location and arrangement of the
trailers create both a visibility and an access problem. It is
difficult to see traffic from the other side of the trailers, and
the driving lane is narrowed.
Section 205.15.07.D.(10) of the zoning code allows overnight
parking of motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the
principle use without screeninq only if they are not readily
visible from the public right-of-way. Again, as was stated
previously, this loading and storage area is highly visible from
the public right-of-way, therefore, the code would require that
this area be screened. Also, as the trailers are consistently
parked overnight, the "loading area" functions as a storage area.
Staff Report
SP #90-06, Sears Outlet Store
Page 3
In addition to the above noncompliance situations, the storage
trailers are inconsistent with the goals and objectives for Tax
Increment District #2• Goal pR" states: nto promote sound land
use development procedures, including area design standards,
landscaping, and lighting standards, architectural review of new
developments and such standards that may be developed that promote
sound land resource management". These storage trailers are
inconsistent with the area design standards that were developed for
the remainder of the parcels within the district. The remaining
building (Shorewood Shopping Center) has also been
remodeled consistent with the design of the new office/shopping
center building. The semi-truck trailers are a direct contrast;
an example of what the redevelopment district strives to remove
through the district's goals and objectives.
Recommendation and Stipulations
Because of the high visibility of the trailers from the public
right-of-way and the Shorewood Inn, the negative impact on traffic,
access and parking, and no effective method of screening, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
special use permit request,.SP #90-06, to the City Council.
i
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, May 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for
the purpose of:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #90-
06, by Robert Bushy for Sears Outlet Store,
per Section 205.15.1.C.(8) of the Fridley City
Code, to allow exterior storage of materials
on Lot l, Block 1, Shorewood Plaza, generally
located at 1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place.
�NALD BETZOLD
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: May 16, 1990
May 23, 1990
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley
Community Development Department, 571-3450.
SP 4�90-06 MAILING LIST Planning 5/11/90
Robert Bushy; Sears
Council
Robert Bushy
Sears Outlet
1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Nicklow Realty
6161 Highway 65 N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Shorewood Plaza Partners
2233 Hamline Avenue North, 4�220
St. Paul, MN 55113
Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health
5525 Cedar Lake Rod
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Manager
]001 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Manager
1250 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health
1200 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
St. Phillips Lutheran Church
6180 Highway 65 N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Planning Commission Chair
City Council Members
u
c
_� �
- --,►--
. ��..=
W
>
a
a
W
Y
Q
m
�
SP ��90-06
Bob Bushey ; Sears
S �/2 ��C. /3, T. 3�
C/TY Oi FR/OL EY
�
LOCATION MAP
0
!
f
�
1
EXHIBIT A
MOORE LAKE �OMMONS WEST
�
cc
_
�
SP �90-06
Bob Bushey; Sears
. ---_-- _ ---�__:,.:::�f� -��+�
' �--�
••, : �..i � �c►�`•�... _ .. . .
:� t
.t
i '•
��
i�
*Note: The Sears parcel is
taxed separately.
PROPoSED ST012�}GE
.�
�
SITE PLAN
sue�ECT P
City of Fridley Zp ���
" AT TME TOP QF TME TMI�NS g U I L D I N G P E R M I T "�
�
� � RECEIPT NO.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D�V
r ��' � � PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC 3 y 3�C
i �; ��h� GITY MAII FRIDIE� 55�32 NuMlEp 11EV pI�TE ��GE O� �►na0vE0 !r
ti""�� 612-57�-3450 �aF�S 10/26/89 � �
1pe ADDRESS 1000 East lsooreLake Dzive N.E.
1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION BEE ATTACMED
oESCn. � Pt. 16,17 Parcel 180 Auditor's Subdivision �88 BMEET
� oAGPERT1r OWNER MAIL ADDRESS IIP PMONE
Sears Surplus Store 100 East Moore Lalce Drive N.E.
3 GONTRACTOR MAIL AODRESS Z�P PMONE LICENSE NO
Covenant Oonstruction 7904 - 73rd Avenue North, Brcoklyn Park, l�Al 55428
� ARC1111ECT OR DESIGNER MAIL AODRESS 21P YMONE LIGENSE NO
493-3100
S ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PMONE LICENSE NO
6 USE OF BUILDING
R2td11
7 GLASS OF WORK
� NEW ❑ ADDITION � ALTERATION O REPAIR O MOVE O REMOVE
B DESCRIBE WORK
Construct truck ramp into store .
9 CMANaE OF USE FROM TO
� 9TIPULATIONS
See notations on plan. Paint east side of store walls. �ve the
�semi-trailers from the site on oz 3�efore Nove�mber 17, 1969: See letter dated
Septe�ber 6, 1989 concerning this property and written by George Applebaiun.
W���`��►��
Before digsir,? c�!! fcr
ell utiltty Ic��ti�ns
a�-000z
REQUIRED BY LAb'V
SEPARATE PERM(TS REQUIRED FOR
WIRING, HEATING, PLUhiBfNG AND SIGN�
SEPA1iATE PERMITS AiiE REOUIiiED FOR ELECTRIGAL, PLUMBING, FIEATING. �PE OF CONST. p���JPANCv aROUP OCCUPANCr LOAD
VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
TNIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WOpK OR CONSTRUCTION IONING 50. FT. CU FT
AUTNORIZED IS NOT GOMMENCED WITMIN 80 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION
OR WORK I& SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PER100 OF 1=0 OAYS AT
ANY TIYE AFTEp WORK IS COMMENCEO- NO. DWLG. UNITS OFfSTpEET VARKING
I MEREBY CEpTIFr ThIAT I MAVE REAO AND EXAMINEO TNIS APPLICATION STALLS GARAGES
AND KNOW TME SAME TO BE TRUE AND GORRECT. ALL PiiOVISIONS OF LAWS yp�VATION SURTAX
AND ORQiNANGES GOVERNING TMiS TVPE O� WORK WILL BE COMPLIED s� � OOO S6. OO
WITM WHETMER IFIED MEREIN OR NOT. TME GRANTING OF A PERMIT
DOES NOT SUME TO GIYE ♦UTMORITY TO VIOIATE Op CANCEI TME pEqMITFEE SACCMARGE
PROVISI S OF AnjM OTMER' TATE OR LOCAL LAW REGUTATING CON- $13S.00
STRU 10N OR PERFOR� NCE OF CONSTRUCTION
P�AN GNECK FEE TOtAL FEE
, -- $ B7.75 5228.75
S�Gw�tu O� CO�+ AC�OpOp�UTMON�ZED�GENT �Da�E� W1iEN PROPEiiLY Vp�IppTED T►i15 IS VOUp PEpM�T
n
S�Gw��UpEO�ONIMEp���OwwEpBU:DEp� �b�TE� B.^G �ti5� ����f
-
_
F� GI
FltIDLEY MUNICIPAL CETv'TER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (61'_ ► 571-! _'87
March 20, 1990
Sears Surplus Store
1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Owner/Manaqer:
On October 26, 1989, you were issued a building permit (see
attached copy) to construct a truck ramp into the store. One of
the permit's stipulations stated that all semi-trailers were to be
removed from the site by November 17, 1989.
A recent inspection revealed that numerous semi-trailers are still
being stored nlonq the south and southeast portions of the
buildinq. In addition to constituting a violation of this building
permit (#20177), this storage is clearly visible from the public
right-of-way and thus not permitted by the Fridley Zoning Code.
I will be reinspecting this site on or about April 4, 1990, at
which time full compliance is expected. Please call me et 572-3595
if you have questions or wish to discuss this further. Thanks for
your cooperation!
Sincerely,
Steven Barq
Code Enforcement Officer
SB:ls
C-90-138
-
_
FlV �LGI
Flt1DLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
April 11, 1990
Mr. Robert Bushey
Sears Surplus Store
1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Bushey:
Please review the attached letter which I sent to you on March 20,
1990, with respect to outside storage of trailers in violation of
Building Permit #20177 and the Fridley Zoning Code. Subsequently,
you contacted me and indicated an interest in applying for a
special use permit for exterior storage.
A reinspection on April 11, 1990, revealed that numerous trailers
are still being stored along the south and southeast portions of
the building, and as of this date we have not received your
application for a special use permit.
I will be conducting a final inspection on or shortly after April
30, 1990, at which time full compliance is expected. This
inspection will not be conducted if your special use permit
application has been received in our office prior to that date.
Should the deficiency still exist on the final inspection date and
no application has been submitted, legal action will be approved.
Please feel free to call me at 572-3595 if you have questions or
wish to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Steven Barg
Code Enforcement Officer
SB:ls
C-90-179
Excerpt from Redevelopment Plan TID #2
REDEVELOPMENT 60AL5 AND OBJECTIVES
The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Fridley City
Council�establish the following goals and objectives for the Moore Lake
Redevelopment Project. These goals and objectives are an outgrowth of the
Fridley Comprehensive Development Plan.
� A. To redevelop the Shorewood Shopping Area into a Neighborhood
Shopping Center to service the surrounding neighborhood population.
B. To promote and publically assist the development of the undevel-
oped and underutilized property in the Redevelopment District.
This shall include the use of Tax increment financing to develop
commercial and housing developments. Such assistance may include
land "write down" costs, land acquisition and parcel assemblage
to provide large land tracts for development, property acquisition
and clearance for new developments, property acquisition and clear-
ance of non-conforming land uses that are near �ew developments,
financial assistance in the provision of public utilities, finan-
cial assistance for the provision of necessary site improvements,
and such other assistance that is in conformance with State Law.
C. To stimulate private investment to stabalize and properly balance
the housing supply.
D. To increase employment opportunities and employment alternatives
through an active program of comnercial development in those areas
best suited for this development.
E. To increase the tax base of the City through cooperation and as-
sistance to commercial and housing developers with consideration
of full utilization of underutilized residential, corr�unnercial and
industrial properties
F. To provide a plan and continued planning for orderly cortmercial
and residential expansion which allows for the most economical
utilization of municipal services.
G. To provide development and redevelopment opportunities that will
allow for the construction of a variety of residential units and
commercial services throughout the Moore Lake Redevelopment Pro-
ject which dsuof theeCitvely serve the housing and comnercial
service nee Y
H. To designate through official land use controls, areas best suited
for residential and camnercial development.
I. To maintain a healthy, safe environment through out the Moore Lake
Project Area.
-4-
J. To provide various forms of financial assistance that are deemed
appropriate, legal and acceptable to private enterprise in their
development efforts such as industrial revenue fonding, tax ex-
" empt municipal revenue bonds, or state and federal loan and grant
monies.
� OK. To promote sound land use development procedures including area
design standards, landscaping and lighting standards, architec-
turaberdevelo ednthat pronrotestsounddlandhresource managementat
may P
L. To continually update development and redevelopment plans, de-
sign standards,and other official controls that will promote
sound development, redevelopment, health and safety.
SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
More specific goals and objectives will be developed with each tax
increment financing plan for specific projects in the Moore Lake Re-
development District.
-5-
,
i1
:�- � STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE
�'� O f PLAIVVNG CONMSSION DAl'E : May 30 , 19 9 0
FR! DLEY CRY COI�IqL DATE AUTHOR M�/ dn
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DATA
SIZE
DENSITY
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
$� Z�i�
��$
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSIS
FlNANCIAL IMPUCATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREF�JVSNE PLAN
COMPATBILRY WITH
ADJACENT USES 8 ZONNG
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDAT{ON
APPEALS RECOMMENDATiON
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
L . S . 4� 90-02
Jake Bozony
To split Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights in order to
create two buildable lots
West of 479 - 79th Way N.E.
West parcel, 12,145 sq. ft. - East parcel, 14,238 sq. ft.
R-I, Single Family Dwelling
R-1, Single Family to the East, North, and West; Fridley
Park land to the South
Available to new lot
$750.00 at time of building permit
Yes
Yes
Concern with constructing residence in or near flood
plain
Approval
Staff Report
L.S. #90-02, Jake Bozony
Page 2 -
Reauest
Jake Bozony is proposing to split L�t 2, Block N, Riverview Heights
into two parcels; one 10 feet wide, the other 15 feet wide, and
combine them with adjacent lots in order to create two buildable
lots. Mr. Bozony currently owns Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block N,
Riverview Heights and also Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Springbrook Park
(see site plan). Lot 2 is located west of 479 - 79th Way N.E.
where Mr. Bozony resides.
Site
The subject parcels are zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are
the parcels to the north, east, and west. Riverview Heights Park
is located to the south.
Analysis
As Mr. Bozony owns all the lots involved in this lot split/
combination, he could in fact decide to combine Lots 2, 3, 4, and
5, Block N, Riverview Heights, and create a buildable lot for a
future dwelling unit. However, Mr. Bozony is proposing to split
Lot 2 in order to provide maintenance access for the future owner
of 479 - 79th Way N.E. to maintain the bluff line in this location.
Mr. Bozony is proposing to relocate a house that was recently
constructed by students at Fridley High School to the new vacant
lot, and will then sell his existing dwelling.
The proposed lots meet all the zoning code requirements for lot
size, lot width, and access to a public street. There are
utilities available for the future dwelling unit.
The westerly portion of the new lot is within the Mississippi River
flood fringe. The petitioner's surveyor is currently locating the
flood fringe elevation on the property and is preparing a revised
survey. The zoning ordinance contains the following four
provisions for subdivisions in a flood plain area (Section
205.24.09):
1. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the
City of Fridley for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage,
water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
2. All lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a
building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Datum.
3. Al1 subdivisions shall have water and sewer disposal
facilities that comply with the provisions of this Chapter and
have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual
Staff Report
L.S. #90-02, Jake Bozony
Page 3
building sites no lower than two (2) feet below the Regulatory
Flood Protection Datum.
4. All subdivisions in the flood plain district shall satisfy the
requirements of this Chapter. The City shall evaluate the
subdivision in accordance with procedures established in this
district.
The proposed lots meet the above criteria for subdivisions within
the CRP-2 Flood Fringe District. The lot is located at the edge
of the flood fringe district and can meet the flood proofing
requirements of the O-1 District. The site is serviceable by water
and sewer. If the lot split is approved, Mr. Bozony may have to
apply for a special use permit in order to construct his house
within the flood plain should the CRP-2 elevation line fall within
the location of the proposed dwelling unit. The code allows
construction of residential dwellings within the CRP-2 with a
special use permit.
Recommendation and Stipulations
Because the proposed lot split creates lots which conform to the
zoning and subdivision codes, and because the subdivision meets the
flood plain district criteria, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the lot split as proposed to the
City Council with the following stipulations:
1. Should the CRP-2 flood fringe elevation fall within the area
that the dwelling unit is to be located, the petitioner shall
apply for a special use permit.
2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner shall apply for a moving and building permit
prior to placing the house on the property.
-. _
C' 1 1 �F
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
May 22, 1990
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal
hearing on a request for a lot split, L.S. #90-02, by Milan Bozony,
to split Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights, in order to create the
following two parcels:
East Parcel: Lot 2, except the East 10 feet thereof, and all of
Lot 1, Block l, Springbrook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, except
for the South 25 feet thereof for 79th Way N.E., Lot 2, except the
East 10 feet thereof, and all of Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Park,
Anoka County, Minnesota, except for teh South 25 feet thereof for
79th Way N.E., and Lot 1 anti that part of Lot 2 lying Easterly of
the Westerly 10 feet of said Lot 2, as measured at right angles to
and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 2, all in Block N,
Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota.
West Parcel: Lots 3, 4, and 5 and the Westerly 10 feet of Lot 2,
as measured at right angles to and parallel with the Westerly line
of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
All generally located west of 479 - 79th Way N.E.
Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the
Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 30, 1990 at the
Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E., at 7:30 p.m.
DONALD BETZOLD
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
- L.S. ��90-02
Milan Bozony
Roger Geis
520 Dover Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Milan Bozony
479 - 79th Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Earl Gemmill
468 Longfellow Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Kevin Holman
571 - 79th Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Bergsagel and Rogness
16515 - 6th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Walter Rasmussen
541 - 79th Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Earl Gemmill/Resident
560 Buffalo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Margaret Iverson
7899 Broad Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Alden Gerszewski
7885 Broad Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Edmund Baron
467 - 79th Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Frank Pomeroy
455 - 79th Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Clyde James
430 Longfellow Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
7870 Apex Lane N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
MAILING LIST Planning 5/18/90
Council
Richard Reller
7898 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Garland Lagesse
7951 Broad Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
James P. Bowe
2546 - 3rd Street N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
James P. Bowe/Resident
7919 Broad Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Planning Commission Chair
City Council Members
e
�
L.S. 4�90-02
Jake Bozony
S //2 S EC. �
C/TY OF
� 31
�
`�E " 1 ' '�
,a.:.r..: �� '� �a \ ,
��
� � �' _s ,a
t 4
:T i
� �.
\. \
�'1 ��\ ''�,,.',>`,�:
S '. \�c
•, �,...
' \\
s \
�,
�r �
�
33 �O
�
�S-�"Z /
���
/V
�o
G��
�
� �\A�\ � � r�\�� •�0��
_ ��
`- � N
� � .::, .
� � �Q ��
� � C`�`
� � � �' �
.,
� ` _ �=
- �
34
�I
r
ELY
\-!�
.. � � -•
, �' .
� '�9
�v rl
F�� J�
`�r�',
r�Ar
''" I
�9
��
,
LOCATION MAP
� L. S. 4� 90-02
�
� Jake Bozony
A
�
� � �.
\� .
� \
R I V E R W.F W
HEIGH t�
\
•-....
....
...Z..
,.. ..
i� • �� �
��.�i�r .
ZONING MAP
�
w
�
_
7
X
a
s
n
�
�
�
�
I�
tl
�
9
�
�
i
i
�
�
� �6�q9 �
� �
� • ��� �
� �� ��
t�
.� �`���
� ����;
� � ����
� �����
� ����
��Aa�
i �i���
' j.
i ; ��
✓�. ;.
�:�.
' �.�.�
/� �; N_y,�+�i��?:�• �.-
\'�.
�4 � i' .
► '
� �t :
,
1
1
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
,
,
�
C �
�
� i 10 �
� , .., �
F��' ' �
V ,l � i
♦ `�'i��'� f� ;� ;/�
5���,��''�
t � %�
C' '
t, �F� ;
�
t. F � .:• ',
�1t , 1
�
�
t�1
�s ,
I� i►
��p A�
g
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�e�
�
L . S . 4� 90-02
� ��
� �
� ��
�. ��
� �
p �
� � .
�
�
� �
�
� �
� r�
..�'
.�,�
/f f -
�i�
�� �l .
�� �
1 �� �
/ �
����
��.
.t .�
.� -
—�� ��
?�� �,�. 12' ALLEI�
� S �
� C. � ��(1� i
i,� � ! '
1� � �
�' , � �
:
� �
s; .Jt , � � �
5,�� Y � �
� ; �', ; Existing � ; _ �� .
� �; � Dwelling � , a � •��
� i �4?8 ; 'o; /
� .�o, ' � � ��
�
�
'� 1i j � 1
1
� �p �, , � { .�';
� � i � � � f :.
, � j g � � T-,,�
' � ?
� ! � _ � - � � �'
� ! � � tp i
�
� � s �
.-•- .� '�° 1 , �
C++rb �
�
� ����
1NAY
etTIO �
�
E�`
� �i /
��
��
i ��
�m
�x
��
$
�
�
� �.
�J ~
s
� c
� �R
�
�h
� y �
�
��
�L
�
� �
~� ��
Q � �.
w/�
rn �l.
� � �
�
I
SITE PLAN
;'
s
� PLANNING DNISION
�
MEMOR,ANDUM
c�nroF
fRIDLEY
DATE: May 25, 1990
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator
SUBJECT: Proposed Lot Coverage Ordinance Amendment
Attached is the proposed amendment to the M-1 and M-2 Districts,
adding an additional section to the Lot Coverage section to permit
a special use permit application to exceed the maximum lot
coverage, up to a maximum of 10�.
The Planning Commission recommended that a special use permit not
be permitted; however, the City Council preferred to require a
special use permit. The City Council also directed staff to
. prepare standards by which the permit could be evaluated.
Therefore, two standards have been proposed for the Planning
Commission and City Council final action.
The Attorney's office is also in the process of reviewing the
proposed language.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed ordinance amendment as presented.
BD/dn
M-90-372
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, May 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for
the purpose of:
Consideration of amending Section 205.17.03.0
(the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District) and
Section 205.18.03.0 (the M-2, Heavy Industrial
Zoning District) of the Fridley Zoning
Ordinance, by adding the following language
regarding lot coverage requirements:
( 4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above
may be increased up to a maximum of ten
percent (10�) of the permitted lot area
with a special use permit. In addition
to the requirements of this Section and
the factors identified in Section
205.05.04 to evaluate special use permit
requests, the City shall consider the
following factors in determining the
effect of the increase in lot coverage:
(a)_ For existing developed properties,
the total amount of existing
hardsurface areas shall be evaluated
to determine whether a reduction in
the total building and parking
coverage can be achieved.
(b) The petitioner shall prove that all
other ordinance requirements are met,
including but not limited to,
parking, storm water management, and
landscaping.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
onnortunitv at the above stated time and place.
DONALD BETZOLD
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: May 16, 1990
May 23, 1990
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley
Community Development Department, 571-3450.
�
�
cinroF
fRIDLEY
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING DNISION
MEMORrANDUM
May 25, 1990
Planning Commission Members
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Proposed Parking Space Width Amendment
Attached is the proposed ordinance amendment to various sections
of the zoning ordinance, to reduce the width of a parking stall for
specific uses.
The Planning Commission recommended that the parking stall width
be reduced to 9 feet for all uses; however, the City Council
preferred to reduce the parking stall width to 9 feet only for long
term employee parking, industrial uses, and for multiple family
developments. The City Council also recommended that all parking
spaces, both 9 feet and 10 feet, be double striped.
The Planning Commission may want to consider additional language
to the R-3 district, to limit the width of the parking stalls to
only multiple family developments to avoid a potential conflict
with other uses in the R-3 District, as was discussed regarding the
Moose Lodge rezoning application. Possible language is as follows:
"Parking stalls may
multiple dwelling
apartments . "
Recommendation
be 9 feet in width for multiple dwellings and
complexes, including rental and condominium
The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as
presented.
sn/dn
M-90-373
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, May 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for
the purpose of:
Consideration of amending the following
Sections of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance to
permit nine foot wide parking stalls in certain
districts, and to require parking spaces to be
double-striped:
1. DEFINITIONS
205.03.55. Parking Stall.
A ten (10) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long
area to store one (1) automobile, which has
access to a public street or alley and peranits
ingress and egress of an automobile: wParkinct
specified elsewhere in this code. Where a
parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk, the
length may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet.
City Engineer.
1. R-3 DistriCt
205.09.07.A.S3L Parking stalls may be nine (9)
feet in width.
2. M-i District
205.17.05.D.
term employee parkina.
3. M-2 District
205.18.05.D.S13) Parkincr stalls may be nine
.�
Parking Stall Size
Page 2
4. 8-2 DISTRICT
205.22.6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
All performance standards for uses in this
district shall be comparable to other similar
uses that are allowed in other districts.
permit.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place.
�NALD BETZOLD
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COP�iISSION
Publish: May 16, 1990
May 23, 1990
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley
Community Development Department, 571-3450.
!
('
CITY OF F1tIDLBY
APPBALB COMMIBSION 1sE8TING, MAY 22, 1990
w�w.rwwr w w.w.w�rwwrw.ww.w.w.w►wwww.www.wrw �.w►w.wr.�rwww.www�.w.w.wr.rwrwwwrw.www.wrw►w.w.w.ww�.w. r w wwr w..
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Savage called the May 22, 1990, Appeals Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos,
Cliff Johnson
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Pat Wells, Wescot Construction
Arland Breyer, 490 - 67th Avenue N.E.
APPROVAL OF MAY 8 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to approve the May
8, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #90-09, BY WESCOT
CONSTRUCTION•
Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((1)) of the Fridley
City Code to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from
17 feet 6 inches to 14 feet 9 inches, to allow the
construction of additional living space on Lot 15, Block 5,
Rice Creek Terrace Plat 3, the same being 490 -67th Avenue
N.E.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE POBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of 67th Avenue and 7th Street. The site is zoned R-1, Single
Family, District, as are the surrounding parcels.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a 12
ft. by 16 ft. four season porch with an attached deck off the rear
" r
APPEALS COMMISSION l�iEETING, MAY 22. 1990 _ PAGE 2
of the house. In 1956, a single family home with an attached
single car garage was constructed on the site. In 1968, the
original garage was converted to living area, and the current two
car garage was constructed at that time. At the time thesg
conversions occurrrd, the house and garage met the required sid'e
yard setback. It was not until 1969 that the setback was changed
to those similar to today's zoning code requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated that when staff evaluates variance requests,
they often look for alternatives that would allow a petitioner to
meet the zoning code requirements. In this instance, there is a
kitchen window to the west of the proposed addition. The Building
Code prevents the addition from being shifted approximately 2 feet
9 inches to comply with today's zoning code standards. The other
alternative would be to shorten the addition by 2 feet 9 inches,
which would, in effect, create an asymtnetrical room. The proposed
addition extends an even distance on either side of the entry door,
with a large window centered across from the entry door in the
south wall of the addition.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner was not responsible for the
change in the zoning code requirements, and the addition would not
increase the current encroachment. It would only continue the
current line of nonconformance. As the request does not increase
the encroachment, staff is recommending the Appeals Commission
approve the variance as requested. This recommendation is also
based on a court case regarding Trinity Church in which the State
Appeals Court approved a City's variance similar to this one.
Mr. Pat Wells, Wescot Construction, stated that letters were sent
to Mr. Arland Breyer's immediate neighbors to see if they had any
objections to this proposal. These neighbors signed the letters
stating they had no objection to the addition proposed by Mr.
Breyer and thought it would be an improvement to Mr. Breyer' s home .
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive into the
record letters dated May 18, 1990, from Mr. and Mrs. Rodney
Middlestadt, 495 - 66th Avenue N.E. ; Walter Hebrink, 480 - 67th
Avenue N.E.; and Joyce Nordin, 491 - 67th Avenue N.E.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42
P.M.
Dr. Vos stated he is in favor of approving the variance. The
addition would continue the current nonconforming setback. It
�..�
APPEALS COMMISSION 1+I8 TING 1SAY 22 1990 PAGE 3
would be unsightly to put in a 30 inch jog, and then there would
be problems with the kitchen window. The addition does not seem
like it would be disruptive in any way to the adjacent neighbors.
M�. Savage agreed. She stated she is familiar with this property.
The problem is not the homeowner's. There is a hardship because
of the circumstances of the property. She did not think it would
defeat the code to just continue the building line as it exists
now.
Mr. Kuechle also agreed. He thought the variance request is well
within the guidelines the Appeals Commission must follow, and he
would vote in favor of the variance.
Mr. Johnson stated that based on the statements made by the other
commissioners, he, too, would vote in favor of the variance.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve variance
request, VAR #90-09, by Wescot Construction, pursuant to Section
205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((1)) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the
side yard setback on a corner lot from 17 feet 6 inches to 14 feet
9 inches, to allow the construction of additional living space on
Lot 15, Block 5, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 3, the same being 490 -
67th Avenue N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANZMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff spoke with Councilmember Steve
Billings regarding this variance request. He thought this was not
a variance request the Council needed to see and authorized the
Appeals Commission to take final action on this request.
2. CHANGE IN JULY MEETING DATES:
Ms. McPherson stated that currently, the Appeals Commission is
scheduled to meet on July 3. She asked the Appeals Commission if
they wished to reschedule this meeting.
The Appeals Commission members agreed to cancel the July 3 and July
17 meeting dates and reschedule the July meetings for July 10 and
July 24.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting.
IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Savaqe declared the
May 22, 1990, Appeals Commission meetinq adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Res ectfully sub itted,
Ly Saba
Recording Secretary