04/08/1996 - 4847'
UTYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ATTENDENCE SHEET
Manday, Apjc.i.Q 8, 1996
7:30 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
',PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS
ITEM
NUMBER
�
� � ' ���� ��_ i,.,� `�. � pP�"�.
, � ; �_ � c .; � r J-�- �1i � _ ��
�... /��� ��%'S' l � .� �',�.�c, ����' .��� l�'�
�
� �
�'�2,��1 ` - G-�, � � f C.`; /�!J � � � �j '}' G��,__�' �i�<_ 2
i' �' � � n vl S'� r2�''
� - z � � 1 � J�
✓� _ � , / �� ���': CJL(-�N t .
, „�: � �,�,� ' G � �
.
..
„ L ,�� � . % �`% � '"� r � �� ' �( J ���/ �' aZ1jGZi"���;
'" `J G��,,�✓Z.,c° C/ y�� ,' )1�'�'S�LLLr �� i/��� � Gi�/ G p� <� d
,� ' �✓� � I.� .r% r' t i' l``.� � �
/'^ .�� ,�1�.� � j j �, �5-�--�
,
; , , �—
�� � � � �,�`-7 � ' C_
� � �d // __ �� J.� l .� �.�.f� � / /�` C G ��-'' J �l� ,
� f �
� � �`- � (ji��-y�� fiP/'f�N�s� � �
C� /l� L -� .�;' �', � � �' i � '
CC��i�'1�� � �,Y�C''� �'�j�C:�� I--�1� �Y � -� ��,,
�
�
CffY OF
FRIOLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
APRIL 8, 1996
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment,
or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex,
disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services,
programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities
who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance.
(TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
PROCLAMATION:
Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust: April 14 - 2�, 1996
BOARD OF REVIEW l�JIEETING:
Board of Review : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.02
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of March 18, � 996
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
Page 2
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of March 6, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.15
Establish a Public Hearing for April 22,
1996, for an Ordinance Amendment to
Limit Hard SurFace Driveway or Parking
Stall Surface Material to No More Than
30 Percent of the Calculated Front Yard
Area in R-1 and R-2 Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.02
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of March 20, 1996 . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.19
Special Use Permit Request, #SP-96-01,
by Ronald and Janet Zaczkowski, to
Allow a Secondary Accessory Building
in Excess of 240 Square Feet, Generally
Located at 314 Hugo Street N.E. (Ward 3)
....... 5.01-5,07
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, '1996
�PPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA•
NEW BUSINESS (CONTiNUEDj•
Resolution Approving a Subdivision,
Lot Split, L.S. #96-01, to Split Property
into Two Separate Parcels, Generally
Located at 276-78 58th Avenue N.E.
(By Valley Investment Co.) (Ward 3)
Page 3
............ 6.01 -6.09
Establish a Public Hearing for April 22,
1996, on a Vacation Request, SAV #96-01,
by Imperial Homes, Inc., to Vacate a
Drainage and Utiiity Easement, Generally
Located at 1435 Royal Oak Court N. E.
(Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approve Change Order No. 4 to Locke
Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211
Resolution Authorizing Changes in
Appropriations for the General Fund
. 7.0'! - 7.03
:� :�-
For the First Quarter of '! 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.02
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 Page 4
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEIN BUSINESS �CONTINUED�
Claims .................................... 10.01
Licenses ................................. 11.01-11.09
Estimates ................................. 12.01
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
(Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes)
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 Page 5
NEW BUSiNESS:
Resolution Adopting Findings of Fact
Establishing that a New Environmental
Assessment Worksheet is Nof Required
for Lake Pointe Office Park and Related
Trunk Highway 65/West Moore Lake
Drive/Central Avenue Intersection
Improvements : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.27
Variance Request, VAR #96-02, by
Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback
from 27 Feet to 26 Feet and to Increase
the Encroachment of a Deck in the Rear
Yard from 10 Feet to 12 Feet, Generally
Located at 6496/98 Riverview Terrace
N. E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 - 14.21
Variance Request, VAR #96-06, by
Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer,
to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback
from 27 Feet to 15 Feet, Generally
Located at 6496/98 Riverview Terrace
N. E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.01 - 15.20
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 199fi
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI:
Variance Request, VAR #96-04, by
Joe Maertens, to Reduce the
Front Yard Setback from 100 Feet
to 35 Feet, Generally Located at
160 - 83rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 3)
Page 6
...:............... 16:01 -16.22
Resolution Requesting the Reduction
of Speed on County Highway 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 - 17.03
Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01
ADJOURN:
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULP.R MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF
M�FtCH 18 , 1996
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order
by Mayor Nee at 7:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman
Billings, Councilman Schneider, and
Councilwoman Bolkcom -
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
COUNCIL MEETTNG, MARCH 4, 1996:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. REESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22, 1996 FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO CLASSIFY GRAVEL AND/OR DIRT DRIVEWAYS AS A
NUISANCE AND PROHIBIT THEIR USE:
2. REESTABLISH PUBLTC HEARING FOR APRIL 22, 1996 FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE DEFINITION AND
REMOVAL OF JUNK OR UNSAFE VEHICLES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY:
3. REESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22, 1996 FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMF:NDMENT PROHIBITING THE RETURN OF ABATED PROPERTY TO ITS
ORIGINAL LOCATION IF IT CONTINUES TO BE IN VIOLATION OF CITY
ORDINANCES:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the above three proposed
ordinance amendments were originally scheduled for a public
hearing this evening; however, the publication deadlines were
not met. He requested that these public hearings be re-
scheduled for April 22, 1996.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 2
RE-SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE ABOVE THREE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR APRIL 22, 1996.
4. RESOLUTION N0. 18-1996 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
APRIL 22, 1996, ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT FLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT N0. 1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS. 1-3,
6, 7, AND 9-14:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Allan Mechanical, Inc. is
proposing to construct a 17,000 square foot building at a cost
of $800,000 on the Northco site. He stated that they are
seeking a five percent TIF grant for soil correction. He
stated that the public hearing is for the expansion o-f the TIF
district.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 18-1996.
5. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING" ON CENTRAL AVENUE ALONG
THE MEDTRONIC PROPERTY (WARD 2):
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated Medtronic has requested that
"No Parking" signs be installed along Old Central Avenue from
69th Avenue north to their property limits. He stated
Medtronic felt that parking along the curb represents a safety
concern for both pedestrians and traffic due to the amount of
traffic and the speed limit on Old Central. Mr. Burns stated
that the County is agreeable, but would like Council's
approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
6. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE
CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PROJECT N0. 294:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is an annual project
for the repair of miscellaneous concrete curb, gutter and
sidewalks in the City. He stated that the project also
includes the repair of two concrete streets in the Innsbruck
area and concrete work for the Fire Department at the Fire
Training Center. Mr. Burns stated that the low bidder was
Landmark Concrete in the amount of $42,842.50.
The bids were as follows: Landmark Concrete, $42,842.50;
Standard Sidewalk, $47;400.00; Schmidt Curb Company,
$47,940.00; Gunderson Bros., Inc., $50,002.00; Advance
Concrete, $51,262.50; RSO Custom Concrete, $54,556.00; Thomas
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF M�FtCH 18, 1996 PAGE 3
7.
:
& Sons, $555,550.00; Halvorson Construction Company,
$63,270.00; and Curb Master, Inc., $70,725.00.
RECEIVED THE ABOVE BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO THE LOW
BIDDER, LANDMARK CONCRETE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,842.50.
RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE SANITA.RY AND STORM
SEWER REPAIR PROJECT NO. 292 (WARD 1):
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that bids were received for
this sanitary and storm sewer repair project which includes
repair of the sanitary sewer along Seventh Street (700 feet
north of 61st Avenue to 330 feet south of Bennett Drive) and
storm sewer repair along Seventh Street (Mississippi "Street to
66th Avenue). He stated that an alternate bid was included
for additional sanitary sewer work on Seventh Street (330 feet
south of Bennett Drive to Bennett Drive). He stated that the
bids were lower than the amount budgeted. Therefore, it is
recommended that the alternate bid be included for this
project. He stated that the low bidder for this project was
Visu-Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. in the amount of $151,400.90.
The bi�s were as follows: Visu-Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc.,
$135,973.40 plus $15,427.50 for the alternate, and Insituform
Central, Inc., $194,960.00 plus $28,050.00 for the alternate.
RECEIVED THE ABOVE BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO THE LOW
BIDDER, VISU-SEWER CLEAN AND SEAL, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$135,973.40 PLUS THE ALTERNATE BID OF $15,427.50 OR A TOTAL
BID OF $151,400.90.
MOTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT :
Mr, Burns, City Manager, stated that six sites have been
identified in this year's Capital Improvement Plan for the
replacement of playground equipment. He stated that these
sites are Harris Lake Park, Jay Park, Logan Park, Springbrook
Park, Summit Square Park, and Terrace Park. He stated that
vendors will be given a set maximum dollar amount available
for this equipment and installation, and each playground site
will be bid as an individual project.
Mr. Burns stated that after bids are received, each project
will be evaluated by City staff and the Parks and Recreation
Commission with input from area residents at neighborhood
meetings. He stated that recommendations will then be made on
the best value for funds expended.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 4
APPROVED THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
9. RESOLUTION N0. 20-1996 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $183,464
FROM THE SPECIA.L ASSESSMENT FUND TO THE CLOSED BOND FUND:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this transfer of funds
from the special assessment fund to the closed bond fund
represents the interest earned on a storm water connection
charge that has been accruing since 1972.
ADOPTED RESOLUTSON NO. 20-1996.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 21-1996 AUTHORIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO
REQUEST PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE•TRAINING
TOWER FACILITY AT THE FIRE TRAINING CENTER (WARD 1):
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Fridley is working with
the cities of Brooklyn Center, Blaine, Mounds View, and Spring
Lake Park to construct a training tower behind Columbia Arena.
He stated that funds for the fire training center have been
from local businesses, Fridley CAER members, and efforts by
fire fighters. He stated that the fire training center is
designed to support training not only for fire suppression,
hazardous materials and emergency medical services, but also
for confined space entry, environmental monitoring and other
courses that public works and other employees may need. He
stated that the fire trainin� center is available for lease by
the technical colleges and businesses who also need a
training campus.
Mr. Burns stated that Fridley's commitment for this training
tower would be $25,000. He stated that the funds were not
budgeted in this year's capital improvement budget. Depending
on the costs, Council may or may not have to authorize
additional fund balances.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 21-1996.
11. CLAIMS:
AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 67005 THROUGA 67193.
12. LICENSES:
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE
LICENSE CLERK`S OFFICE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 5
13. ESTIMATES:
APPROVED THE ESTIMATES, AS FOLLOWS:
Frederic W. Knaak, Esq.
Holstad and Larson, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of February, 1996. ......$ 4,250.00
Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered
301 Fridley Plaza Office Building
6401 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Services Rendered as City Prosecuting
Attorney for the Month of January, 1996. ..$15,443.43
Schield Construction Company
13604 Ferris Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization
Project No. 264
Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86, 086. 64
No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent
agenda items.
Councilwoman Jorgenson requested that Item 5 be removed from the
consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve.the consent agenda items,
with the deletion of Item 5. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider ta adopt the agenda as submitted
with the addition of Item 5 from the consent agenda. Seconded by
Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 6
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
Mr. Grant Fernelius, HRA Housing Coordinator, introduced Robert
VanNelson, Home Remodeling Counselor.
Mr. VanNelson stated that he was recently hired as a HRA Home
Remodeling Counselor for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
He stated that he provides home evaluations for residents of the
City advising them on options to pursue in making improvements, and
connecting them with resources. He stated that he is available
afternoons Monday through Thursday and mornings on Friday. He
stated that evening appointments can also be scheduled, and he can
be reached at 572-3515. Mr. VanNelson stated that he will be at
the Fridley Home Remodeling Fair on April 20 at the Fridley High
School from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Fernelius invited everyone to this event which is co-sponsored
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Home Depot. He
stated that there will be a display of products for home
improvements and remodeling, as well as lawn and garden
information. He stated that staff would be available to answer
questions on grants. He stated that representatives from the
building inspection division, and police, and fire departments will
also be on hand to answer any questions. He stated that there will
be activities for the children since this is a family event. He
stated that residents may call the Fridley Informatian Line at 572-
3600 or his office at 572-3591 for further information.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she wished to thank Home Depot for
co-sponsoring this event.
Mr. Platt, Real Estate Manager for Home Depot, stated that they
will be opening their store April 11. He stated that Council
approved a sign variance for Home Depot based on the elimination of
the billboards. He stated that Home Depot agreed to do everything
in their power to eliminate the billboards. However, the price to
purchase that land is $175,000 which is more than what was
anticipated, and it will be another $100,00 to buy out the
remaining leases of the sign companies. He stated that the total
cost would be about $275,000 to comply with the requirements of the
variance that was granted. He stated that at this point he really
does not know what direction to proceed and is looking for guidance
from Council.
Mayor Nee stated that one of his major concerns is the traffic. He
asked what was being done in this area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 7
Mr. Platt stated that Home Depot received approval from the County
to design, instail, and maintain a traffic control signal at the
intersection. He stated that they have hired Barton-Aschman to
complete the design work. They will turn the signal over to the
county, once it is installed and will pay an annual maintenance
fee. He stated that Home Depot has agreed to pay for a traffic
study on 57th Avenue which will be done by Barton-Aschman to
determine if right-of-way is available to install. turn lanes to
allow for a free flow of traffic.
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the variance
to Home Depot was conditioned upon the removal of the billboards
within a negotiable time frame. She felt that staff would need to
come back to Council with some options. She stated that one option
was a billboard amortization ordinance to amend the sign ordinance
declaring billboards a non-conforming use and establishing a time
frame in which they should be removed.
Mr. Platt stated that he took advantage of the opportunity to bring
this to Councii this evening to see if there were any suggestions,
as the cost is prohibitive to purchase the property and then have
the billboards removed.
Councilman Billings stated that Mr. Platt's figure of $175,000 was
to purchase the property, and he understands then that Home Depot
has not purchased this property.
Mr. Platt stated that a legal easement was recorded prior to Home
Depot purchasing the property, and they would have to buy the
easement for $175,000, as well as the existing leases from the sign
companies which would be approximately $100,000.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she hoped the assessor is
listening to this discussion so that the taxes are based on the
costs to acquire this easement.
Ms. Dacy stated that because it is recorded as an easement and not
a separate lot of record, there was a document that gave the
previous owner the right to use the property for billboards. She
stated that because it is an easement, Home Depot would still have
to purchase it from the original owner.
Councilman Billings stated that it probably should be determined if
two separate tax parcels could be established so the appropriate
persons get the tax statements on that piece of land.
Mayor Nee stated that staff should submit a recommendation to
Council bu� nothing could be resolved this evening. He stated that
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 8
purchasing the easement may be a poor use of money when it could
probably be put to better use in solving the traffic issues.
PUBLIC HEARING:
14. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1996 -
1 & 2 - ALDEN WAY:
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Council-
woman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing
opened at 8:13 p.m.
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that during the last five
years, the City has been active in upgrading the aging streets. He
stated that almost eight miles of streets have been updated which
were all a part of the major collector system. He stated that this
year Alden Way has been identified as one of the major collector
streets that needs upgrading. He stated �Chat the street is 34
years old and requires an exceptional amount of maintenance.
Mr. Flara stated that neighborhood meetings were held on January 30
and March 6 to explain the street improvement program. He stated
that the residents would be assessed for concrete curb and gutter
at a cost not to exceed $ll per front foot. He stated that all the
other costs associated with the zmprovement would come from state
aid.
Mr. Leroy Anderson, 7581 Alden Way, submitted a petition in support
of this street reconstruction project for Alden Way.
Mr. Flora stated that fourteen property owners supported this
project, which amounted to about 26 percent of the affected
property owners.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive Petition No. 2-1996 in.
suppori of the street reconstruction project for Alden Way.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive a letter from Mr. Edward
Rafel, 7540 Alden Way, in opposition to this project for Alden Way.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Anderson stated that when he circulated the petition, a lot of
residents were not at home. He stated that of the persons he was
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 9
able to contact, only one was not in favor. He stated that there
were fourteen or fifteen property owners who favored the project.
Mr. Anderson stated that the curb on A1den Way is in bad shape and
is really worn.
Mayor Nee stated that he received a letter from a Segwald and
Martha Reckdahl, 7823 Alden Way, in support of this project.
Mr. Jerry Fuhr, 7836 Alden Way, stated that there are no cracks in
the street on Alden Way. He stated that Alden Way is not a major
feeder street and does not connect a large amount of traffic to a
major highway. He stated that the street dead-ends on 79th Way and
79th Way feeds East River Road. Mr. Fuhr stated that Alden Way is
30 fee� wide. He finds that sufficient and does not see a need to
widen the street. He stated that the justification for concrete
curb is uniform throughout the City. It would probably help the
drainage, but he did not see the need to spend money on improving
this street.
Mr. Steve Zimmer, 7874 Alden Way, stated that he appreciated the
neighborhood meetings on tliis improvement. He stated that he was a
little disturbed about the reason why Alden Way was going to be
widened and the placement of "No Parking" signs on one side of the
street. He stated that the street has a lot of character.
Widening it and placing "No Parking" signs would turn it into a
thoroughfare which is not appropriate. He stated that the curbs
are in bad condition. He felt that the status of Alden Way should
be changed and that it should not be considered a main arterial
street.
Mr. Zimmer stated that the neighborhood meetings brought out
answers regarding the state Aid funding and that the City, in order
to obtain these funds, to improve the street to state aid
standards. He stated that he does not agree, however, that Alden
Way should be an MSA street. He felt that the City would be better
served by using these funds for other streets. He stated that
Alden Way needs new curb and gutter, but the street surface is in
good condition. He stated that disturbing trees to widen the
street does not make any sense.
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if it is possible not to install the "No
Parking" signs.
Mr. Flora stated that if state aid funds are used and the street is
widened to MSA standards, the street must be signed for no parking
on one side.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 10
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there could be no parking at all on
the street.
Mr. Flora stated that Council could pass a resolution to allow no
parking on the street.
Councilwoman 3orgenson asked if the residents in attendance would
be in favor of no parking on either side of the street, if the
street was kept at the existing width. Two of the residents
indicated that they would not be in favor, and one indicated he
would be in favor.
Councilman Schneider asked the cost if only the concrete curb and
gutter are installed. -
Mr. Flora stated that the cost would be the same for the concrete
curb and gutter which is not to exceed $11 per front foot. He
stated that if only the curb and gutter is replaced, it may not
parallel the existing asphalt. He stated that if the street is not.
going to be reconstructed, he would not recommend replacing the
curb and gutter with concrete curb and gutter. He stated that the
purpose of the new base for the street and concrete curb and gutter
is to provide a smooth slope to carry water. He stated that the
existing street does not have a smooth slope, and it is irregular
because of the roller effect which does not provide a smooth,
continuous line.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated Council's policy is to require that
at least fifty percent of the property owners support an
improvement project. She s�ated that more signatures in support of
the project would be needed.
Mr. Anderson stated that he is in favor of upgrading the street,
and the curbs need replacing. He stated that he did not instigate
this project, at some time in the future the owners will have to
pay for it. He stated that the estimate for the curb and gutter
four years ago was $9.50 a front foot, and now it is up to $11 a
front foot. He stated that the costs will not get lower but only
increase.
Councilwoman Bolkcom advised Mr. Anderson that if he feels strongly
about this project, he may wish to pursue circulating the petition
in support of the improvement.
Mr. Anderson asked the time frame for obtaining bids.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MP.RCH 18, 1996 PAGE 11
Mr. Flora stated that the plan was for the proje�t to be completed
this sununer, but it does not mean it could not be done at a later
date.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that a number of streets have been
widened in the City from 30 feet to 32 feet. He questioned how
this affects the neighborhood.
Mr. Flora stated that the street, basically, remains the same width
with only about eighteen inches of additional property disturbed
with the new concrete curb and gutter installion. He stated that
no trees are disturbed because plantings are not allowed that close
to the curb.
Mr. Fuhr stated that his neighbor has a blue spruce that has been
trimmed so that the curb is visible, but the roots would have to be
cut. He stated that he objects to losing parking on both sides of
his street. He stated that one side is against the river, and
people are already using it as a bikepath.
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked Mr. Fuhr if he felt widening the street
would increase the traffic.
Mr. Fuhr stated that he felt it was being widened to put more
traffic on the street.
Mr. Flora stated that Alden Way is a collector street for the
neighborhood to get to East River Road. He stated that the amount
of traffic will not change regardless of whether or not the street
is widened. He stated, however, that in order to use MSA funds,
the street must be 32 feet wide with parking on one side.
Councilman Billings stated that Alden Way could be removed from the
MSA designation. He stated that the City is workinq on a program
to upgrade the streets and to consider them according to priority
taking into account the age and wear. He stated that because Alden
Way is a MSA street, there is priority to having it improved. He
stated that if residents do not want the street improved, funds
would be used on other streets. He stated that at this time, the
residents have the opportunity to get the paving done and paid for
by MSA funds.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she respects Mr. Fuhr's opinion,
but most residents who have had their streets improved are very
satisfied with the outcome. She stated that she would encourage
him to contact these residents where the streets have been
reconstructed.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 12
Mr. Flora stated that Alden Way is a collector street and has a
base that can still be saved. He stated that right now all that is
needed is an overlay of asphalt over the existing base. He stated
that if the improvement is not done until the base is broken, the
City would be looking at a total reconstruction, and then the costs
increase substantially. He stated that the City is trying to
minimize the cost and to maximize the infrastructure to protect the
City's investment.
Councilman Schneider stated that the improvement is of benefit to
the property owners because the State pays a portion of the cost.
He stated that in order to obtain these funds; however, the state
requires widening the street and posting "No Parking" signs.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this public hearing.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Nee stated that the public hearing will remain open for
continued discussion.
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked staff to notify the residents on Alden
Way when this item will again come before the Council.
NEW BUSINESS:
5. RESOLUTION NO. 19-1996 ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING" ON CENTRAL
AVENUE ALONG MEDTRONIC INC.'S PROPERTY (WARD 2):
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 19-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, Councilman
Schneider, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Billings, and Mayor Nee
voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman 3orgenson abstained
from voting on the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried.
Mayor Nee stated that Councilwoman Jorgenson abstained from voting
on this motion because she will soon become an employee of
Medtronic Inc.
15. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND
ANOKA COUNTY FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MISSISSIPPI STREET
AND THIRD STREET INTERSECTION (WARD 1):
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this joint
powers agreement with Anoka County allows the City to work in the
right-of-way of Mississippi Street for the reconstruction of the
Mississippi Street and Third Street intersection. She stated that
the cost for this intersection improvement will be split four ways
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 13
between the County, the owners of Holly Center, Rottlund Homes, and
Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Councilman Billings stated that there would be a concrete median in
front of the existing office building at Mississippi and Second
Streets. He questioned the access to this building for persons
coming east.
Ms. Dacy stated that for those persons coming east, they would have
to make a U-turn in order to access this building. She stated that
this may not be the best solution, but it appears to be workable.
She stated also that persons can use the parking spaces in the
Holly Center to the east of the new driveway and walk to the
building that houses the dental office and travel agency. -
Councilman Billings asked if the recommended travel pattern is to
make the U-turn, as these are discouraged on busy streets.
Ms. Dacy stated that the County aqreed not to sign it as a U-turn.
Councilman Billings
at Holly Center for
was in writing.
asked if the permission to use parking spaces
the building at Second and Mississippi Streets
Ms. Dacy stated that this was discussed in a meeting, but it has
not been recorded.
Counciiman Bizlings stated that if the ownership changes for Holly
Center, those parking spaces could possibly no longer be available.
Councilman Schneider stated he would agree that this is not the
ideal situation where a U-turn has to be made, but he knows of
other areas in the metropolitan area that have the same situation.
Ms. Dacy stated that there is the option of extending the driveway
to the north and closing the existing access. She stated that this
would dictate a one-way movement to come back down to Second
Street. She stated that this may be an option in the future, but
the owners of the professional building were not agreeable to it at
this time.
Councilman Billings stated that a driveway could be constructed on
the west side of this building, but that would cost the owners.
Ms. Dacy stated that the owners of the building wanted to eliminate
the concrete median in the street and, when this could not be done,
the next preference was to maintain their existing access points.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 14
She stated that the City's approach was based on the traffic
pattern and not on who benefits.
Councilman Schneider stated that the preliminary cost estimate is
about $162,000, the costs of which are to be split four ways.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the joint powers agreement
between the City and Anoka County for the reconstruction of the
Mississippi Street and Third Street intersection and to autharize
the appropriate officials to execute same. Seconded by Council-
woman Bolkcom. Upon a roll call vote, Mayor Nee, Councilwoman
Bolkcom, and Councilman Schneider voted in favor of the motion.
Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Jorgensan voted against the
motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. -
Mayor Nee asked the City Attorney, Mr. Knaak, if more than a
majority vote was needed.
Mr. Knaak stated that neither the State Statutes nor the City
Charter require a four-fifths vote on this motion.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 22-1996 ORDERING PRELIMINARY PLANS,
SPECIFICATION5 AND ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS THEREOF: STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 5T 96-4 (WARD 1):
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 22-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a roll call vote, Council-
woman Bolkcom, Councilman Schneider and Mayor Nee voted in favor of
the motion. Councilwoman Jorgenson and Councilman Billings voted
against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried.
17. RESOLUTION N0, 23-1996 RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
RECEIVING PETITIONS TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MATTER
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS: STREET IMPROVE-
MENT PROJECT NO. ST 96-4 (W�1RD 1):
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that only one
party involved in this project would be assessed and that is Holly
Center. Sl�e stated that they have submitted a letter agreeing to
the assessment and waiving the right to a public hearing.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 23-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a roll call vote, Council-
man Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Schneider and Mayor
Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Jorgenson voted
against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 15
:
RESOLUTION N0. 24-1996 AUTHORIZING MUNICIPAL STATE
TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (C.S.A.H.) MISSISSIPPI
THIRD STREET (S.A.P. 127-020-17) (WARD 1):
Mr. Flora, Public
project on a County
to defray the costs.
AID FUNDS
STREET AND
Works Director, stated that this is a City
stree�, and State Aid funds are being requested
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 24-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a roll call vote,
Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Mayor Nee, Councilman
Schneider and Councilwoman Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion.
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
19. RESOLUTION N0. 25-1996 ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
.AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
ST 96-4 (WARD 1) :
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adapt Resolution No. 25-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if this was a budgeted item.
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that plans and
specifications will be prepared by the developer's consultant and
included in the cost of the project.
UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilman
Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Mayor Nee and Councilman Schneider
voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Jorgenson voted against
the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried.
20, RECEIVE PETITIONS FOR LOCKE LAKE EXCAVATION PROJECT NO. 255
(WARD 3):
Mr. Harry Bolkcom, 6821 Hickory Street, President of the Locke Lake
Homeowners Association, presented petitions that contained signa-
tures of those in favor of the Locke Lake project. These signa-
tures represent over 85 percent of the affected property owners.
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive Petitions No. 3 and 4.
Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman
Jorgenson, Councilman Bi.11ings, Councilman Schneider and Mayor Nee
voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from
voting on the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1996 PAGE 16
Mr. Bolkcom stated
person who voiced a
the project itself.
that at the public hearing, there was only one
negative comment regarding the cost but favored
Mr. Bolkcom also stated that when circulating the petition there
was one person who stated the project was too expensive. He stated
that he did not receive any ca11s against the project.
21. RESOLUTION NO. 26-1996 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL PLANS
FOR LOCKE LI�KE EXCAVATION PROJECT NO. 255 (WARD 3):
_ MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt Resolution No. 26-1996.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a roll call vote, Council-
woman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Bill-ings and
Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom
abstained from voting on the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried.
22. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that he would like to discuss three
items in the conference session: (1} consideration of recommenda-
tions of market research consultant regarding the liquor store
location; (2) filling the Park Supervisor position; and (3) General
Fund revenue alternatives.
Councilwoman Bolkcom thanked the seniors �or the letter and wanted
to go on record she is willing to meet with them at their
convenience.
� � �1i1:7� ui��ili�i
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adjourn the meeti�g. Seconded
by Mayor Nee. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of
the Fridley City Council of March 18, 1996 adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole Haddad William J. Nee
Secretary to the City Council Mayor
Form No. A. F 4— Notice to Clerk of Meeti�g oi Board of ReviPw —•F,,..��:,.,.:,...
YOII(Ylor Mnle
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
� �.�.� :�.�.�-�.:� �.�.�.; _, , ,
TOTHECLERKOFTHE City pF_ Fridley
Anoka COUNTY, MlNNESOTA:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Eighth day of _ Apri 1, 1996
at 7: 3 0 o'clock P M., has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Board of Review—
*Equalization—in your — � i ty for said �"� °"' °ne�
, year. This meeting should be held in your office as provided by law.
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 274.03, you are required to give notice of said meeting
by publication and posting, not iater than ten days prior to the date of said meeting.
Given under my hand this Fif teenth day of
,�s96 ,
Anoka County, Minnesota
*APP��es only to Cities whose charter provides for a Board of Equalization nstead of a Board of Review.
1.0 7
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
ASSESSMENT NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Review of the City of
Fridley in Anoka County, Minnesota, will meet at the Fridley
Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue Northeast, in said City
on Monday the 8th of April, 1996 at ?:30 P.M., for the purpose of
reviewing and correcting the assessments of said City of Fridley
for the year of 1996.
All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or
who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too
low are hereby notified to appear at the said meeting and show
cause for having such assessments corrected.
No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted
upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been
notified of such complaint.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter
or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than April 5,
1996.
Given under my hand this 19th day of March, 1996.
William A. Champa
City Clerk
Published: March 28, 1996 Focus News
April 4, 1996 Focus News
1.02:
CITY OF FRIDLBY
PLANNING COMMIBSION 1rIEETIN(�, l[ARCH 6, 1996
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the March 6, 1996, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie
Modig
Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planninq Assistant
Londa Kroone, 5933 Main Street N.E.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
February 7, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIP4N A VOICL VOTS � ALL VOTINQ AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEi1MA�i DLCLARI3D
THE MOTION CARRIBD iT�II�NIMOQBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
�CODIFYING E FRIDLEX CITY CODE:
Chapter 205.07, entitled R-1, One-Family Dwelling District
Regulations, by addinq subsection 205.07.06.A.(3); and
Chapter 205.08, entitled R-2, Two-Family Dwelling District
Regulations, by adding subsection 205.08.06.A.(3). The
purpose of this ordinance amendment is to limit front yard
driveways and parking stalls in single family and two family
zoned districts to no more than thirty percent (30$j of the
calculated front yard area.
MO ION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICI3 VOT$� ALL VOTINQ AYS� CSAIRPER80�T NEWMA�T DBCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND TSH pIIBLIC BEARINa OPB�T AT 7l35 P.ii.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated staff is seeking input on a proposed
change to the R-1 and R-2 sections of the Fridley City Code
regarding paved surface front yard coverage of one and two-family
residential parcels. The purpose of the public hearing is to get
public input regarding the change.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated t�e r���,p�ale fpr this change is
2.� 1
P INQ COMMISSION MESTING, MARCH 6. 1996 PAaB 2
closely related to the driveway issue discussed at the last
Planning Comraission meeting. The idea of a hardsurface coverage
requirement was first discussed in 1993. In the agenda packet
was a copy of the letter from Ms. McCollom which generated that
discussion. In the letter, Ms. McCollom expresses her
frustration with a neighbor paving the entire front yard. In an
informal neighborhood meeting conducted by staff, one of the
concerns was that someone would pave their front yard. This.is
still a related issue.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated the agenda packet includes a one-page
lot co�erage study which reviews the requirements of surrounding
communities and reveals that limiting front yard impervious
surface coverage is not an uncommon requirement. Also included
in the agenda is a sampling of lot coverages throughout the
community and visual samples via aerial photos to demonstrate
some of the these coverages. The lot coverages ranges from 35$
up to 58�.
Mr. Newman asked what area is covered in the example showing 58$
coverage.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated the property has a hard-surface drive
and the remainder of the yard appears to be landscape gravel.
Mr. Saba stated it is common in areas with water shortages to
landscape the yards in such a way. He asked if this home owner
has had complaints from the neiqhbors.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated he has not received complaints since
he had been on the staff. The samples pulled out in 1993 are
examples that appear to have excessive hardsurface coverage in
the front yard.
Mr. Saba stated he thought it necessary to be very careful to
distinguish between hardsurface and a landscaped surface. There
must be some way to do this.
Ms. Modig asked if they were talking only about hardsurfaae
areas.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated, as the proposed ordinance is
written, they are talking about biacktop or concrete.
Mr. Saba asked what the lot coverage would be for the last
example iri..-terms of lot coverage using this definition.
Mr. Hickok stated he believed the 58� came from the hard surface
area and did not include the landscape gravel area:
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated the language of the proposed
2.�2
_i_,_� C • I • YI: C Y_ '"�. �, C
ordinance would be considering hardsurface that is specifically
used for parkinq purposes. It does not include walkways or
patios.
Mr. Newman asked what would happen, for example, if a person
decides he wants to have a hard surface front yard and use it for
a basketball court but does not park on it.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated, as the language is now written, he
thought it would be an acceptable hardsurface use.
Mr. Hickok stated this would be a rare instance. This is the
section of the code that is in the zoning text which is different
from a nuisance. There is a variance provision for extenuating
circumstances. A person could challenge this. Staff would look
closely if someone were going to pave their front yard.
Mr. Newman stated the languaqe references hardsurfaces for
driveways or parking. He shares Mr. Saba's concerns. What are
we trying to get at? Are we trying to address concerns of
impervious surface and run off or are we trying to address
parking issues?
Mr. Hickok stated he thought the issue was parking and not
turning the front yard into a parking lot. If language is needed
to differentiate between folks who want to do something else,
staff can look at it.
Mr. Newman stated the problem is enforcement. Is this used for a
parking lot or is it landscaping? The City could run into
problems with enforcement. It is better to step back and ask if
public policy is to limit impervious surface. Does the City have
an ordinance that talks about the amount of impervious surface
allowed?
Mr. Hickok stated there is such an ordinance for commercial
properties but not for residential. Drainage could be an issue,
and staff could use that to make this broader.
Mr. Sielaff stated you must then address the back yard. This
ordinance as it is written does not say anything about the back
yard.
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance as it is written is intended to
talk about the driveway and the front yard. The percentage is
based on the area of the front yard and the amount of hardsurface
drive.
Mr. Newman stated he had a neighbor who parked a limousine behind
his house. With this ordinance, a person could turn their back
yard into a parking lot?
2.03
PLANNINQ COMMISBION ME$TINa. MARCB 6, 1996 PAQ$ 4
Mr. Hickok stated a situation such as this would be addressed
through the home occupation section of the code. It is possible
someone could have four or five vehicles and may choose to use
their back yard for parking.
Mr. Newman asked the width of a three-car qarage.
Mr. Hickok stated the standard three-car qarage is approximately
32 feet wide.
Mr. Newman stated there are few three-car garages in Fridley but,
as people remodel and/or upgrade, we will see more. If a person
had a straight driveway to the street and has 32 feet of drive on
a 90 foot lot, the coverage could be 33� to 35�.
Mr. Hickok stated staff scaled other lots to use as examples.
With our standard house setback and standard lot widths, he
thought a person could utilize a standard driveway for a three-
car garage and not exceed 30�. On the lots staff scaled, the
percentages were closer to 25�. Typically, staff saw driveways
narrower at the street and broadening out by the garage.
Ms. Modig asked what would happen to those residents who
currently have 58� coverage.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated, because this is a modification to
the zoning text, that person would have a pre-existing, non-
conforming use. That person would be allowed to keep the
driveway. If he/she wants to enlarge it, staff would then
review.
Ms. Modig asked what would happen if the property were sold.
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated the non-conforming use would go with
the property.
Ms. Modig stated this ordinance will then not solve any problems
that currently exist.
Mr. Saba stated it would solve the problem for existing
conditions if there was remodeling or reconstruction on that
property. If someone has a driveway with a turnaround or parking
space, is over 30� of coverage, is badly cracked or in disrepair,
and the owner wants to redo it, would he then be in violation of
the ordinance?
Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated yes.
Mr. Saba stated the owner could�then either leave the driveway as
it is, use the hardsurface that is there, or forfeit the parking
space.
2.04
�� C • yI • � Y1" C Y c
Mr. Hickok stated, in this case, the person would have to rebuild
using the 50$ standard.
Mr. Newraan stated the homeowner could redo the area piecemeal.
Ms. Modig stated enforcement then continues to be the problem.
Mr. Newman stated homeowners also have the variance process they
could go through.
Mr. Sielaff asked what was an acceptable runoff for a residential
driveway.
Mr. Hickok stated they do not have a hardsurface coverage
requirement for residential. They have a structural coverage
requirement. Therefore, the engineering staff do not qet
involved with residential issues. If there is a question about
sheet drainage or a surface easement, they would then get
involved but not otherwise.
Ms. Modig asked if the engineering staff get involved with new
developments.
Mr. Hickok stated yes, especially if it is multi-family. They do
not get involved in single family residential on a lot-by-lot
basis.
Mr. Sielaff asked how the engineering staff would desiqn it if
this were the case. They must take into account a certain size
driveway for run off.
Mr. Hickok stated, in a new development area, staff would take
standard setbacks and standard drive widths to calculate the
runoff for that area.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there was some basis for limiting coveraqe
if drainage is the issue.
Mr. Hickok stated there is merit to that as well as other issues
such as a driveway versus a basketball court. Staff can take
this back and do an evaluation on the runoff. •
Mr. Newman asked if there was a time factor on this.
Mr. Hickok stated this could go before the City Council on
April 22.
Mr. Newman recommended discussion be tabled in order for staff to
further evaluate the comments.
Mr. Newman asked when the aer�j �io� were taken.
2.05
PI,�NNINa COMMISSION MFETINQ. MARCH 6. 1996 PAQ$ 6
Mr. Hickok stated the photos were taken in either 1993 or 1994.
Mr. Newman asked for comments from the public.
Ms. Kroone stated she has a 40-foot lot. Since they bought the
house 20 years ago, it has always had a front driveway. The
drive is now dirt and they plan to hardsurface. She is concerned
if they would be able to keep their front driveway. They have
very little space for company to park. She also does not care to
park in the street or have visitors park there. She has had a
hit-and-run with her car. That street is very busy and will get
busier. She asked who came up with the 30�. The garage is
detached and set back behind the house. Also, they put an
addition in the back of the house and she planned to put the
driveway to the garage and bring the hard surface to the back
door. Could there be special circumstances if it turned out the
coverage would be at 35�? Could there be an exception? She
would hate to lose a front driveway.
Mr. Newman stated he did not think the fact that the garage was
set back was of concern. The proposed ordinance talks about
front yard coverage.
Ms. Kroone stated, since that part is seen to the street, would
that footage change.
Mr. Newraan stated the calculations would occur from the front of
the house to the street. Whether or not it is seen from the
street is immaterial. The 30� figure came from what other
communities have adopted. The purpose of the hearing is to see
if this figure should be 30�. Ae asked Ms. Kroone what the width
of the driveway would be.
Ms. Kroone stated the driveway would be about 10 feet to 13 feet
but it would be narrower by the street.
Mr. Newman stated the proposed language would exclude sidewalks.
The calculations would include only the driveway and parking
surface. If she has a 40-foot lot and a 10-foot driveway, that
is 25$ coverage.
Ms. Kroone asked if there could be exceptions to the figure that
is decided.
Mr. Newman stated a variance is an option. They want to draft
the ordinance to minimize the need for variances. An essential
element in order to enforce an ordinance is to keep it fairly
specific and remove as much objectivity as possible. They would
hate to see the ordinance prevent anyone from having a driveway.
There are ways to do this and address the concerns. One of which
is for you to have a hard surface driveway.
2.�6
PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEBTING. MARCH 6, 1996 PAO$ 7
No further comment from the public was received.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modiq, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICL oOT$ � ALL VOTINa A]CB, CHAIRPERSON NEWM�T DBCL1�lR$D
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINt3 CL088D AT 8t08 P.l[.
Mr. Newman suggested this item be tabled in order for staff to
address concerns. He has four concerns. First, he thought they
should take a look at total lot coverage and impervious surface
coverage. He thought staff should look at the whole lot and not
just the front yard. Second, if you decide not to deal with lots
or impervious surface, staff should look at restricting parking
to the hardsurface or driveway areas. Third, look at the 30�
figure. He was not sure that 35� would do just as well. Fourth,
Ms. Kroone raises an interesting concern with the narrow lot.
Staff may want to make an exception, in any event, that a person
could have a driveway of a minimum width, ie. 15 feet.
Mr. Saba stated the exception could be for the old narrow, 40-
foot lots.
Mr. Hickok stated, for the meeting, staff can take Ms. Kroone's
lot as an example and could mail to her that information to give
her a sense of what the coverage would be.
Mr. Sielaff stated the Edina parking restriction looks as though
it incorporates the percentage according to the square footage of
the lot. He would be interested to know what their justification
is for those numbers. He would like to find out how and why they
came up with those numbers. He wondered if drainage was a
consideration. Most of the other communities have 30� front yard
area so he did not think they needed further information on that.
Coon Rapids must have less than 50� coverage for buildings,
driveways and paved areas.
Mr. Newman stated a fifth concern to be addressed was the concern
regarding the percentage of coverage being tied to the square
footage of the lot.
Mr. Newman asked if they had addressed the landscape concern.
Mr. Saba stated they had as long as this is defined with driveway
and parking. It could be a concern with a basketball court or a
large patio. There could be some unique situations and he wants
to stay clear of those. He would rather confine it to parking.
Mr. Newman referred to the example of the property with 58�
coverage and where the front yard is landscaped. He would
suspect that the landscaped area has black p�astic under the rock
����
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ME$TING. MARCH 6, 1996 PAG$ 8
so the impervious surface would actually be nearly 100�. He did
not want to intrude in a private decision to fully landscape a
house or yard, but he would be concerned if someone could turn
the front of their house into 90� to 100$ impervious surface.
Mr. Saba stated this type of landscaping was promoted by
environmental groups during times of drought.
MOTI N by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table
consideration of an ordinance amendment recodifying the Fridley
City Code and for staff to address the following concerns:
1. Look at total lot coverage and impervious surface.
2. If not dealing with total lot impervious surface, to
restrict parking to the hard surface or driveway areas.
3. Increasing the percentage from 30$ to 35�.
4. An exception where, in any event, a person could have a
driveway of a minimum specified width.
5. Whether the percentage should be tied to the total width of
a lot.
IIPON A VOICS VOT$� ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPERSON NE�MAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY.
2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF JANUARY 8. 1996
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to rec�ive the minutes
of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of January 8, 1996.
IIPON A VOICB VOTB, ALL VOTINti AYE� CSAIRPERSON NEIIMAN DBCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 4UALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1996
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
, minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting
of January 16, 1996.
OPON A VOICL VOT$, ALL VOTIN(; AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMA�T DECLARL�D
THE MOTION CARRIl3D IINANIMOIISLY.
4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 24, 1996
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
� /:
PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETINQ. MARCH 6. 1996 PAGB 9
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of January 24, 1996.
IIPO�i 11 VOICB VOTB� ALL VOTI�Tti AYE, CHAIRPI�.RSO�i �TS1IlLl�t DBCL11R8D
TH$ MOTION CARRILD ONANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1996
OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes
of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of February 5, 1996.
IIPON A� VOIC$ VOTIl, ALI. VOTING AYE, CHAIRPSRSON NBWMlil�i D$CLARBD
THB 1[OTION CARRIBD QNANIMOIISLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
6. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CITY�S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED TO NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Mr. Hickok stated he wanted to hand out the ordinance for non-
point source pollution before the public hearing on April 3. The
City regulates non-point source pollution through ordinance. The
Metropolitan Council has asked us, in conjunction with the Home
Depot project, to make our language in the Comprehensive Plan
match that of the Home Depot project.
Mr. Hickok stated the City is ala�► about the revise the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff will � t�ut for a housing action plan
to be put toqether. Overall, the +�omprehensive Plan consistency
issues, staff will go through and categorize, inventory and
evaluate for consistency; then come back with the inconsistencies
�or the Planning Commission to review.
Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that this makes the Comprehensive
Plan consistent with the ordinance previously adopted.
Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The City chose to address
non-point source pollution by ordinance. Other cities have done
so through their Comprehensive Plan. The Met Council wants the
City to do both. Staff will bring this forward in April.
7. UPDATE ON THE ROTTLUND PROJECT
Mr. Hickok stated this item was before the City Council at their
last meeting.
Mr. Newman asked what happened to the name "Stonegate".
Mr. Hickok stated the name "Christenson" is somehow related with
Rottlund. Rottlund asked at a previous meeting if the Council
would object to a name change. This item had very little
2.09
PLANNING COMMISSION M$$TING. MARCH 6, 1996 PAQS 10
discussion on the part of the Council.
Mr. Newman stated Fridley needs more than anything else to change
its image. The name of the project is important, but he did not
think this name would do that. They could have a public area
named Christenson Park or Christenson Pond but he did not like it
as the name of the development.
Mr. Saba shared the same concern.
Ms. Modig stated she would prefer a name with some pizzazz to it.
Mr. Newman asked staff to let the Ci�y Council know the Planning
Comaiission has stronq reservations about the name change and the
image it creates. He understands the City Council's concern but
perhaps a public area could be called Christenson Plaza. The
name does have historical significance.
Mr. Saba stated he wouid to go back to Stonegate to keep the
character of the development.
Mr. Newman asked if the fire department or police department has
any problem with Christenson Lane and Christenson Court as far as
emergency planning.
Mr. Hickok stated he had not heard that this is a concern.
Mr. Hickok stated, after much discussion on the technical issues
of the development aqreement, the City Council and Housing &
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have come to an agreement as ta the
aspects of the development. There have been some changes made
since this was before the Planning Commission. The development
will have 54 detached units, 32 townhome units back-to-back, and
32 row homes. There was much discussion about the three-story
condominiwn buildings and the city's interest in subsidizing the
cost. The conclusion was, rather than go with a subsidy, to have
the developer come back,with another option. Rottlund came back
with one and two-story units with one and two-stall garages.
Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the one-stall garages.
The Planning Commission wanted two-car garages.
Mr. Hickok stated there was concern about pricing. Rottlund was
asked to bring the price of the units to where we could still
provide affordable options, for example, for those who would have
been interested in a condominium for $90,000.. The cheapest floor
plan is the one-level, one-car garage unit which addresses the
accessibility and affordability issues.
Mr. Saba stated he was bothered by the fact that the City does
not allow anyone else to �����}.��th a single-car garage, but we
2.10
PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETZNQ. MARCH 6, 1996 PAaB il
are doing it here.
Mr. Newman referred to page 12 of the handout. When lookinq at
the elevation, it looks like eight units. In looking at the site
plan, he did not see any units that are eight across. Is the
elevation truly accurate?
Mr. Hickok stated there are actually two units less and more
space between the buildinqs. These units have windows front and
back.
Mr. Newman asked if Christenson Court and Christenson Lane will
have the same structures.
Mr. Hickok stated there will be a mix of one and two-story units.
Rottlund is not to put identical units side-by-side. The City
will have to be careful to make certain they do not have
identical units.
Mr. Newman stated, in the original plan, the housing was a one-
story cottage along Christenson Court and a two-story home along
Christenson Lane. Are both of those styles going to be�
incorporated into this plan?
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The cottages are smaller than originally
planned to get at the affordability issue. These now have a
smaller footprint and a lower price range of approximately
$90ROOO to $100,000.
Mr. Newman stated the plan oriqinally had a mix of MZ" lots and
"0" lot lines. If the plan to get rid of the NO" and go to the
"Z" lots?
Mr. Hickok stated yes. In the development discussion, there was
some debate over how to integrate affordability and the visual
interest. At that point, they decided that seqregating the one-
story and two-story units might cause a generic appearance rather
than have a mix of one and two story units as one would find in a
neighborhood.
Mr. Newman stated in the original plan the units looked similar
and that is what he liked about the design. He asked if the
smaller house was the driving issue of the affordable housing.
Mr. Hickok stated he thought the City did so because of the
commitment to seniors to provide affordable housing with little
maintenance.
Mr. Newman asked if this was not already being done with the
townhomes.
2.11
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MARCH 6, 1996 PAGB 12
Mr. Hickok stated it is a different market. The three-story
townhomes would attract younger buyers. The real attraction will
be for those looking for one-level living.
Mr. Newman stated he was concerned about affordable senior
housing. The City is taking the last piece of available land and
developing housing for just over $100,000. What other
opportunities will there be for upscale housing in the community?
Ms. Modig stated the oriqinal idea of this project was to make it
upscale.
Mr. Hickok stated another issue was the number of units. We
could not stray far from the number of units along with the other
issues in order to make the project work.
Mr. Newman asked where the Council was on the issue of the
prevailing wage.
Mr. Hickok stated he believed the Council approved an exemption
for the residential project.
Mr. Saba stated he does not want anything to cheapen this
development. He wants something to make this an icon. He does
not like seeing the single-car garages and the higher density.
Ms. Modig asked if this was a done deal.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. These are new products which are a result
of the earlier design discussions and which take into
consideration the elements discussed in terms of landscaping,
fences, walls, etc. The discussion of the design criteria drove
the design of those units and the developer looked to do
something that would complement that design. They believe they
have designed the features that will allow this to look like a
very nice development.
Ms. Modig stated this has one-stall garages when the Planning
Commission had indicated very strongly that it does not work.
Her son lives in a townhome with a one-car garage as do several
others next to him. The parking becomes a nightmare. Most
occupants have two cars. As a result, the visitor parking is
generally full of residents' cars.
Mr. Newman stated, if you look at the MLS sheets, the number of
homes that are not on the river or in Innsbruck which sold for
over $100,000 have been very few. If we are going to encourage
homeowners to invest in their homes, to renovate, we need to have
more homes in the community in the $110,000 to $120,000 range.
The City has many in the $90,000 range. He looked at this as an
opportunity to move the Ci�� up� :� �ealizes the seniors are
Z.y2
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ME$TINd. MARCH 6, 1996 PAaB 13
active voters, but he thought we need to look at what is best for
the City for the long term. if we put in senior housing, we will
have open homes for other families. But there are other options,
and he has a real concern about that.
Mr. Hickok stated he thouqht the base would be $95,000. .If this
is like other developments, he thouqht they would find some base
units but with so�e options added the cost will be hiqher. This
pushes the envelope of prices up to where he thought they would
hit the $120,000 niche.
Mr. Newman stated he thought the townhomes would be less
expensive. If the single family units could be $110,000 to
$130,000, we thought Rottlund would do okay. He thought they
needed to avoid downsizing to get below that.
Mr. Saba stated that is the way the Planning Commission felt when
first looking at this project and still want an upscale
develop�ent.
Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they were trying to maintain a
certain total value.
Mr. Newman stated part of the problem is to increase the density
for the tax increment value and a certain density is needed to
accomplish that.
Mr. Saba stated his biggest concern is the single-car garages.
This will eventually end up with a mess for parkinq with the
density in that area.
Ms. Modig stated the area of the village homes does not have any
visitor parking.
Mr. Hickok stated the street width allows on street parking and
there is also driveway parking.
Mr. Saba stated he is concerned that we are allowinq thinqs here
that would not be allowed in an R-1 or R-2 district just to get
density.
Mr. Hickok stated he brought the plan to show the Commission
where it is at and to keep the Commission informed of the
progress. Ms. Dacy would be a good resource if there are any
questions or issues to discuss. He could asked her to attend a
future meeting.
Mr. Newman stated they could do this only if it will make a
difference. He understands the economics, the impact of the
decision, etc. We can express our concerns. He can appreciate
that staff has a difficult time because on this project staff are
2.13
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGB 14
trying to serve three masters - the HRA, the City Council, and
the Planning Commission. We have concerns. As Mr. Saba stated,
we are doing things here we would not allow elsewhere. We are
allowing one constituency to drive the planning needs of the
City. He hoped that this would be a way to turn the imaqe of the
City and he did not think what is being proposed will do that.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Hickok stated he will send out a copy of their planning
periscope. This is a listing of items that are coming up and
tracks when these items will go before th� City Council.
Mr. Hickok stated a Hyde Park neighborhood meeting will be held
March 19 regardinq the redevelopment of the Frank's Used Car
site. Planning Commission members are welcome to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NE�MAN DECLARED
THB MOTION CARRIED AND THS MARCH 6; 1996, PLANNING COlYIIYII88ION
MEETING ADJOIIRNLD AT 8:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
, � � ��
� �l
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
2.14
S I G N- IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMTSSI4N.MEETING, March 6, 1996
. Name Address/Business �
' � � ,c% � . .
2.15
I\a 1 1a �:=\ i 1►/
PLAS�TNING DIVISIUN
DATE: April 3, 1996
TO: Wiiliam Burns, City Manager ��
a�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Pianning Coordinator
Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Pianning Assistant
SUBJECT: Establish a Public Hearing for Aprii 22, 1996, fior an Ordinance
Amendment to Limit Hard Surface Driveway or Parking Stall
Surface Material to No More than 30% of the Cafculated Front Yard
Area in R-1 and R-2 Districts
Background
The hard surface lot coverage issue was first addressed by the Pfanning Commission -
in 1993. tn conjunction with the proposed hard surface driveway, junk vehicle, and
nuisance abatement ordinance revisions, the 30°� coverage issue was revisited in a
January 4, 1996, memo to William Bums. A Planning Commission public hearing was
held on March 6, 1996, at which time the attached ordinance was reviewed.
Recommendation
Staff requests that the City Counci! establish a public hearing for April 22, 1996, for
consideration of an amendment to Fridley City Code Section 205.07.06 entitled
"Performance Standards" by adding Section 205.07.06.A.(3) and Section 205.08.06
entitled "Pertormance Standards" by adding Section 205.08.06.A.(3}.
KJS:1s
M-96-162
3.a1
Consideration of an ordinance amendment
recodifying the Fridley City Code chapter 205.07,
entitled "R-1 ONE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS", by adding subsection
205.07.06.A.(3); and chapter 205.08., entitled "R-
2 TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT REGIJLATIONS", by
adding subsection 205.08.06.a(3); and renumbering
the remaining sections consecutively.
The purpose of the ordinance amendments to the R-1 and R-2 sections
of code is to limit frant yard driveways and parking stalls in
single family and two family zoned districts to no more than thirty
percent (30�) of the calculated front yard area. A draft of the
proposed changes are listed below.
205.07.06 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
,. ,�. - �.� � .- -� i�. . �- .� . - .
. �. .- -. � . .. .� - - . . +- �. . -
,.,. - . .. . -. . � - . . . .. , �.
. .. -
205.08.06 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
. �t. �_+ � .- -� �' . �- ., . - .
. �. .- -. , . .. .� - - . . �- �. . -
��. - . .. . -. . ♦ - . • - • .. �.
. . -
3.02
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNINt3 COMMI88ION MEETIN(i, MARCH 20, 1996
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the March 20, 1996, Planninq Commission
meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist,
Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Diane Savage
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty
Rich Riemersma, Imperial Homes, Inc.
Bob Horeck, 5505 W. Danube
Jan & Ron Zaczkowski, 814 Hugo Street N.E.
Jean & Bill Schacher, 8191 Ruth CircZe N.E.
Ralph Officer, 315 Hugo Street N.E.
David Landrus, 5775 - 2 1/2 Street N.E.
Ray & Dorothy Hegna, 5770 - 3rd Street N.E.
Kathy Roesler, 5846 - 2 1/2 Street N.E.
Terry Reyes, 1479 N. Danube Road N.E.
Norm Jenkins, 5730 Duluth Street,
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Irving Brody, 5031 St. Croix Avenue,
Golden Valley, Minnesota
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the
agenda.
IIPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTINt3 AYE, CSAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THL MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 6, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
March 6, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written.
QPON A VOTCTs VOTB, ALL VOTIN(i AYE, CSAIRPERSON NFWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
l. PUBLiC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#96-01. BY RONALD AND JANET ZACZKOWSKI:
Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1j of the Fridley City Code, to
allow a second access,Qr� building in excess of 240 square
4.0 7
PLANN�NQ COMMISSiON MESTINa. MARCB 20. 1996 PAQS 2
feet, on Lots 29 - 32, Block A, Riverview Heights, generally
located at 314 Hugo Street N.E.
MO IO by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON !l VOICE VOTS, 1,LL VOTIN�i lIYS � CHAIRPLR80N �WMADi DECLARED
TH8 MOTION CARRI$D AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINQ OPEN AT 7i38 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit is,to allow a second
accessory structure over 240 square feet. The subject property
is located at 314 Hugo Street which is just east of Ruth Street
and east of East River Road. Located on the property is a sinqle
family dwelling unit of split level design with an existing tuck
under garage. The Appeals Commission recently approved a
variance request to allow the petitioner to construct a 22 foot x
36 foot attached garaqe. The variance was to reduce the setback
from Ruth Street from 25 feet to 17 feet. As a stipulation of
approval, the petitioner was requested either convert the
existing garage to living space or apply for a special use
permit. Also located on the subject parcel in,the rear yard is
an 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has indicated in his letter
to the Planning staff and to the Planning Commission that he
would like ta use the existing tuck under garage for the family
car. A second car, a boat and hobby woodworking space would be
located in the newly constructed garage. One option presented in
the staff report was to have the petitioner utilize the new
garage for the vehicles and boat and convert the tuck under
garage for the proposed hobby shop. This would allow the
petitioner to remave the existing overhead door and possibly
install double doors or a single service door which could then
allow the petitioner to remove all the asphalt in the front yard
except for perhaps a sidewalk for access ta the front door of the
dwelling unit. The City has in past instances allowed both
garages to continue to exist and has not required removal or
strict conversion of a tuck under garage to living space.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has indicated he would be
removing the off street parkinq space located in the front yard
and returning that to green space. The petitioner will also be
removing the 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the speciai use
permit request with one stipulation:
1. The petitioner shall-remove the existing 8 foot x l0 foot
utility shed within one year of completion of the garage
addition.
4.02
PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETINQ, MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 3
Planning Commission members had no questions of staff.
Mr. Zaczkowski stated he is opposed to havinq the wood shop in
the tuck under space. Any sanding or cutting of wood creates a
lot of dust which drifts into the home. That is why he would
like to put the wood shop in the garage where there is no direct
access into the house except by the outside door. Also, any
polyseal or varnishing could drift into the house as well.
Mr. Newman stated the only requirement of the special use permit
is that the 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed be removed in one year.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner was taking out the additional
parking space and if he would object if the Commission made that
a stipulation.
Mr. Zaczkowski stated he plans to take out the parking space and
the shed. He had no problem with the stipulation.
Mr. Kondrick stated woodworking tools can be noisy. Would this
create more noise from the new garage than from the tuck under
space?
Mr. Zaczkowski stated there may be more noise. He has a planer
and it does involve noise. He did not plan to work at all hours
of the night. He plans to insulate the new garage because he
plans to be out there in the winter.
No further comments from the public were received.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the
public hearing.
IIPON A VOICS VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7sl3 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he has no problem with the request. He went
by the property. He thought the request was reasonable and would
be an asset to that area.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-01, by Ronald and Janet
Zaczkowski, to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240
square feet, on Lots 29-32, Block A, Riverview Heights, generally
located at 314 Hugo Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
l. The petitioner shall remove the existing 8 foot x 10 foot
utility shed within one year of completion of the garage
addition.
4.03
PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGS 4
2. The petitioner shall remove the extra parking area within
one year of completion of the garage addition.
IIPO�T ]1 VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(� AY$� CBAIRPLRSON �TEWl�A�i DSCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU8LY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request
at their April 8th meeting.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #96-01, BY VALLEY
INVESTMENT CO.•
To split Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together
with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said
lots and lying between the Westerly extension of the North
line of said Lot l, and the Westerly extension of the South
line of said Lot 3 into two parcels as described:
Parcel A. The West 65 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 27,
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured
the North line of said Lot 1, and along th
line of said Lot 3, together with all that
� the vacated alley lying West of said lots,
lying between the Westerly extension of th
line of said Lot 1, and the Westerly exten
the South line of said Lot 3.
Hyde
along
e South
part of
and
e North
sion of
Parcel B. That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 65 feet
thereof as measured along the North line of said
Lot 1 and along the South line of said Lot 3.
This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a lot split by the Valley
Investment Company. The property is located at 276-78 - 58th
Avenue. This property is a corner lot located at the
intersection of 58th Avenue and 3rd Street in the Hyde Park
neighborhood. There are three issues to be considered:
1. The Planning Commission will be required to acknowledge
deficiencies in Lot B, a reduction in the required lot width
from 80 feet to 65 feet, and a reduction in the required lot
area from 9,000 square feet to 8,839 square feet.
2. The City's action will create a"swapping" of nonconforming
setbacks. Currently, the property does not meet the
required rear yard setback. Should the lot split be
approved, the required front yard setback will not be met by
the existing dwelling.
4.04
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20. 1996 PAGB 5
3. The detached two-car garage located on the parcel will be
located on a newly approved vacant lot should the request be
approved. The City Code does not allow accessory structures
to be located on a lot prior to the principal structure.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are proposing to take the
parcel comprised of three lots and a vacated alley and split it
into two parcels. Parcel A has an existing duplex constructed in
1959 under R-2, Two-Family Dwellinq District, regulations. This
parcel measures 77 feet x 135 feet and meets the minimum lot area
required in the R-2 district of 10,000 square feet. The lot area
is actually 10,400. The lot split would create Parcel B which is
adjacent to 3rd Street and 58th Avenue. This lot measures 65
feet x 134 feet and has a lot area of 8,839 square feet. Lot B
is deficient in two requirements. The first is the lot width
which is only 65 feet. The minimum requirement for a corner lot
is 80 feet. The second is lot area which is less than the 9,000
square foot minimum. If the Commission chooses to approve the
lot split, the members need to acknowledge these deficiencies.
Ms. McPherson stated the second issue is the nonconforming
setbacks. In 1986, the Planning staff was requested to analyze a
similar lot split request. At that time, it was determined that
3rd Street, because it is the shorter frontage, would be the
front yard making the west portion of the lot the rear yard. The
duplex is currently 13.5 feet at its closest point from the rear
lot line. The required rear yard setback is 35.61 feet. The lot
as it is currently configured without the split is nonconforming
in its rear yard setback. If the lot split is approved, the
front yard would then be towards 58th Avenue. The duplex is also
set too close to 58th Avenue for the front yard requirement of 35
feet. The duplex is 14 feet from what would then be the front
property line. The City's action would create a��swapping" of a
nonconforming rear yard setback for a nonconforming front yard
setback.
Ms. McPherson stated the third issue is the detached garage on
what would be Parcel B. If the lot split is approved, the
accessory structure would be located on the parcel prior to
construction of a principle building. Section 205.04.05.A of the
Fridley City Code explicitly states, "No accessory building or
structure shall be permitted on any lot prior to the time of the
issuance of the building permit for the construction of a
principal building." Staff is recommending the petitioner remove
this garage.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has analyzed the petitioners' options.
The petitioners could potentially move the detached garage onto
Parcel A; however, that does increase the lot coverage from the
maximum of 25$ to 28� which would then require a variance.
4.05
�LANNiNa COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20. 1996 PAa$ 6
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request
with the Planning Commission acknowledging the deficiencies and
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner acknowledges the City's action creates a
nonconforming front yard setback.
2. The petitioner shall remove the garage located on Lot B.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow
buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area.
Ms. Modig stated how is this impacted by the fact that the
Planning Commission is acknowledging the deficiencies regarding
the setbacks and the petitioner is acknowledging that the City's
actions create a nonconforming setback?
Ms. McPherson stated she would respond to the first part
regarding the Planning Commission acknowledging the deficiencies.
The subdivision ordinance allows�the Planning Commission and the
City Council to approve lot splits or plats with lots that do not
meet the minimum requirements. The Commission is in effect
granting a variance to the lot area and lot width requirements.
Those are the only two areas where the Planning Commission is
allowed to grant a variance.
Ms. McPherson stated the seeond part deals with the front yard
setback. While the petitioners acknowledge that the lot line .
along 58th Avenue now becomes the front yard and creates a
nonconformity, it does not qrant the petitioners a variance to
the front yard setback. If the petitioners chose to expand the
part of the dwelling in the area of the garage, they would need
to request a variance.
Mr. Saba asked what was planned to go on the newly created lot.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners have been told that the only
type of building permitted in that district would be a single
family dwelling.
Ms. Modig asked if a time limit had been set for the removal of
the garage.
Ms. McPherson stated a time limit had not been set. This should
be done.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the existing attached garage had two parking
stalls.
Ms. McPherson stated the existing:garage is a 1.5 car garage
being 21 feet wide.
� � •.
PLANNINQ COMMISSION ME$TING. MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 7
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner would have to have hard
surface that would accommodate 2.5 cars.
Ms. McPherson stated existing duplexes constructed prior to the
current code are permitted to provide three parkinq spaces.
Potentially, if the tenants have small cars, they may be able to
get two in the garaqe and the owner would have to provide an
additional hard surface stall adjacent to the garage.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the total lot coverage included hard
surface.
Ms. McPherson stated no. This pertains only to the buildings.
Mr. Oquist asked, if the existing garage on the newiy created lot
could become part of the new structure, would it be necessary to
remove it.
Ms. McPherson stated no, but the Planning Commission would have
to amend the second stipulation to indicate, if a dwelling were
to be constructed within 12 months or 18 months, then the garage
could remain as part of that structure.
Mr. Newman asked if the lot width of Parcel A was nonconforming.
Ms. McPherson stated Parcel A is an interior Zot and the minimum
is 75 feet. This lot is 80 feet which is conforming.
Mr. Newman asked, from a planning standpoint, why should the
Planninq Commission recommend approval.
Ms. McPherson stated that approval would provide an additional
single family lot and provide an opportunity to invest in the
Hyde Park neighborhood. The City and the HRA are encouraging
investment in this part of the City. The request is not greatly
different from what has been previously approved in other parts
of the community. The lot area is not substantially below the
minimum requirement.
Mr. Saba stated he had the same concerns that we are perpetuating
nonconformance. Is this really an investment in the Hyde Park
neighborhood or is this perpetuating nonconformance in that
neighborhood? Without seeing a plan or without knowing what will
be developed there, he is skeptical.
Ms. Hegna stated someone had talked about putting the existinq
garage next to the existing duplex. Where would the driveway be?
Ms. McPherson stated this is a question to direct to the
petitioners. There is an option to go through the�variance
process to construct an addition to the existing garage.
4.07
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MRETINQ. MARCH 20. 1996 PAQB 8
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners could do this and meet the
setback requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated they could do that in the rear yard but not
in the front.
Mr. Newman asked, if the petitioners merely removed the detached
garage, is there a garage by the duplex now.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Mr. Brody, Valley Investment Company, stated they would like to
leave the garage on-the new lot and-construct a single family
dwelling. He hoped to have that completed in the next 16 months.
Mr. Newman asked when the petitioners anticipated breaking
ground.
Mr. Brody stated they hoped to do so this summer.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioners planned to build a new
dwelling on the lot and leave the garage there.
Mr. Brody stated yes. It seems a shame to tear down the garage
when it is already there serving a qood purpose.
Mr. Newman asked, without seeing plans, would that conform with
setback requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated, if the qarage remained detached, it would
meet ttie requirements. If the garaqe is attached, staff would
need to further analyze the request.
Mr. Saba expressed concern about the size of the garage. Isn't
that an issue with new construction?
Ms. McPherson stated the existing garage is 22 feet x 23 feet.
It is small but it would meet the two-car garage requirement.
Mr. Oquist asked, if a house were constructed, which street would
be the address.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner can choose whether to address
the property off 3rd Street or 58th Avenue.
Mr. Saba asked if staff had received any calls from the
neighbors.
Ms. McPherson stated staff had�•not received��any-calls:-� -
iiA ...
Mr. Brody stated their plan i�.�p,���, � single family home.
, � .
PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 9
They would consider sellinq the lot if they had an offer from a
contractor. Either way, there would be new construction in that
area.
Mr. Newman suggested stating as a condition that the time frame
be 12 months for a building permit to be issued with a
certificate of occupancy beinq issued within 18 months and, if
this is not done, the petitioner then must take down the garage.
Mr. Oquist stated he can understand the concern about
nonconforming use but, on the other hand, it is a large empty
area. The points staff has made are valid. He has no problem
with the stipulations.
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners had seen the recommendations
that staff had recommended and if they was comfortable with
those.
Mr. Brody stated they had seen them and had no problems.
No further comments from the public were received.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend
approval of Lot Split Request, L.S. #96-01, by Valley Investment
Company, to split Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together
with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said lots
and lying between the Westerly extension of the North line of
said Lot 1, and the Westerly extension of the South line of said
Lot 3 into two parcels as described:
Parcel A. The West 65 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 27, Hyde
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured along
the North line of said Lot 1, and along the South
line of said Lot 3, toqether with all that part of
the vacated alley lying West of said lots, and
lying between the Westerly extension of the North
line of said Lot 1, and the Westerly extension of
the South line of said Lot 3.
Parcel B. That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 65 feet
thereof as measured along the North line of said
Lot 1 and along the South line of said Lot 3.
This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner acknowledges the City's action creates a
nonconforming front yard setback.
, � .
�
PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEBTIN�. MARCH 20, 1996 PAGS 10
2. If the petitioner fails to obtain a building permit for a
single family residence within 12 months of the approval of
the Lot Split and fails to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy
for said structure within 18 months of the approval of the
Lot Split, then the garage located on Parcel B shall be
removed.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a lonq, narrow
buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area.
IIPON A VOICE VOT1�, ALL VOTINQ AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DLCLARBD
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request
on April 8th.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #96-01 BY IMPERIAL
HOMES, INC.•
To vacate that part of the drainage and utility easement as
dedicated on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition,
described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north
line of said Lot 7 distant 65.10 feet east from the
northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence on an assumed bearing
of South 28 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the
west line of said drainage and utility easement 64.13 feet;
thence South 38 degrees 00 minutes East 32.00 feet; thence
North 24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds West 92.63 feet to a
point on said north line distant 12 feet east of said point
of beginning; thence South 77 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds
West 12.00 feet to the point of beginning. Except the north
5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Royal 0ak Court
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a recently subdivided lot
in the Totino-Grace addition located near Arthur Street,
southeast of the school and located adjacent to a wetland next to
Arthur Street. The petitioner is requesting that a portion of a
drainage and utility easement located on the property be vacated.
The petitioner is requesting the vacation in order to construct a
single family dwelling with an attached garage. The northeast
corner of the garage encroaches into the easement area. The
petitioner is currently constructing a house and at this point is
avoiding the area of the garage to avoid encroachment into the
easement area.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the drainage and utility
easement is to provide additional buffer space for the wetland
area beyond the line delineated by the wetland specialist. The
petitioners have designed a house for their client.
Unfortunately, the design of the house does not fit within the
buildable area when taking into account the easement and setback
4.10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 11
requirements. Wetland delineations are not an exact science.
The additional buffer provided by the drainage and utility
easement is an advantage. The vacation of the easement would
reduce the buffer from 7 feet to approximately 1.5 feet at its
closest point.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the request be denied.
The petitioner has desiqned the garage so that it could be
cantilevered over the easement area which would not require
footings or foundations in the easement; however, the garage
would still hang over and into the air rights of the easement.
There are no utilities that the City would require access to in
this area. The purpose of the drainage and utility easement is
only to protect the wetland located north and east of the site.
Mr. Oquist asked if the petitioner could still cantilever the
garage over the easement even if the request was denied.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. The original design of the garage had
space below the garage which was intended to allow the petitioner
workshop space. That would need to be omitted if the vacation
request is denied.
Mr. Kondrick asked how much t�e setback would be reduced.
Ms. McPherson stated the setback would be from 7 feet to 1.5 feet
at the closest point based on the new line of the easement.
Mr. Newman asked if the City had an ordinance that requires a
specific setback from a wetland.
Ms. McPherson stated no, the City does not have such an
ordinance.
Mr. Kondrick asked if it was correct that this is meant to keep
buildings as far away as possible from the pond.
Mr. Oquist stated this is meant to keep the footings away from
the pond.
Mr. Newman stated the drainage and utility easement is meant to
protect the wetland soils and vegetation. Whether there is a
pond or not is immateria2. The area is designated a wetland and
the easement is to keep that from being disturbed.
Mr. Black stated Bob and Cheryl Horeck currently live at 4555
Danview, have lived there for 20 years and are building their
dream home. Mr. Riemersma, Imperial Homes, spent much time with
the applicants looking at their home, looking at what they would
like to build, and designing a home for the lot. There have be�n
many adjustments made to the plan and they thought they had it
4.11
PLANNINa COl�MI88ION MEBTINQ. MARCH 20, 1996 PAGS 12
until it was staked out on the property, and they were told they
were not allowed to go onto this drainage easement on the
northeast portion of the lot.
Mr. Black stated they are asking consideration to vacate only a
portion of the easement. They are not talking about any setback
variances. The house meets all the setback requirements. It is
the encroachment over the drainage easement that is the problem.
The drainage easement line was not something required by the
City. It is not a requirement that they have this in a certain
spot. It is really the surveyor who drew the easement line up
and above the 100-year flood plane of that pond. If we had known
this, they would have moved the easement over because it is not
going to make a difference. Stringent requirements were placed
on them as they came through the process to get this plat
approved. On this particular lot, there were a number of
stipulations they had to abide by in order to build a home on
this lot.
Mr. Black stated the pond has a 100-year flood plane elevation of
951 feet. The easement line as they wish to amend it will still
be above 951 feet. The easement line as currently shown was
delineated by Mr. Harley, a respected person when it comes to
wetland delineation. However, the wetland soils meander up and
down the hill. The easement line would still be above the
wetland line. The change as proposed would not allow any
encroachment into the wetland. It is not their intention to
encroach into the wetland.
Mr. Black stated another stipulation was that there shall be no
construction below the 953 contour. That is a stipulation we are
abiding by. Regarding flood protection, there is a requirement
that the lowest opening on the lower level cannot be below the
955 elevation. The lower level elevation is at 959.
Mr. Black stated the request is to vacate a
easement. It will not encroach upon any of
placed upon us when the plat was approved.
the building plan.
portion of this
the stipulations
Mr. Black reviewed
Mr. Oquist asked what portion of the easement the petitioner was
requesting to vacate.
Mr. Black stated the area is shown on the Certificate of Survey
as a somewhat triangular shaped shaded area. It could be made
somewhat smaller. Only a small corner of the garage would
encroach totalling approximately 35 square feet. The buffer area
is an area that staff would like to have, but there is nothing in
the code that requires a setback from a wetland. In many lots,
it is common:<to have drainage easements along property lines and
the homeowner maintains the easement. In this area, there will
4.12
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETINa. MARCH 20, 1996 PAG$ 13
be some maintenance within the easement area. The easement line
is the setback line. The house is a walkout rambler with a
three-car garage. It is the back corner of the garage where the
problem occurs. The area below the garage would be a storage
area with an outside access.
Mr. Newman asked if the area of issue is under the third stall of
the garage.
Mr. Black stated yes. To avoid encroachment, they have designed
the wall at an angle with the upper level cantilevered two feet
over the footings in order to provide room for another vehicle.
This creates some other structural problems including an unusual
roof line and an odd exterior elevation.
Mr. Black stated the Horecks are excited about building the
house. They have the permits and are under construction. The
house sits well on the lot and there have been adjustments made
to fit the lot. It is now the issue of the easement. There is
no reason to have the easement this wide beaause they can still
meet all the environmental protection requirements with a
shallower easement area. �
Mr. Newman asked how the easement was set as it is.
Mr. Black stated the easements are drawn on the final plat which
does not reflect the final contours of the property. The
easement line was drawn on the plat close to the wetland at a
point the surveyor thought was above the 100-year flood plain
elevation. It was accepted, and they thought they had enough
room to build. It was not a mistake on the part of the surveyor.
Knowing that these lots had restrictions and that the homes would
be custom homes, in retrospect they perhaps should have paid more
attention.
Mr. Newman asked, when the City approved the plat, did we require
the easement be a certain distance away from the delineation.
Ms. McPherson stated no.
Mr. Newman asked if they had assumed the surveyor was drawinq the
line to be consistent with the delineation of a wetland.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
Mr. Newman asked if the original delineation had chanqed.
Ms. McPherson stated no.
Mr. Newraan stated there was then no reason for additional area to
be dedicated. The surveyor drew �� and we accepted that.
4. 7 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING, MARCS 20, 1996 PAG$ 14
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Unless it is for a
specific engineering request, we do not stipulate the w�dth of
easements.
Mr. Newman stated, since there is no such thing as a wetland
easement, you use a drainage easement.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
Mr. Newman stated, whether or not a hardship is caused, the
problem is that from a structural standpoint cantilevering the
garage is going to be difficult.
Mr. Riemersma stated, from a standpoint of doing custom design
homes and fitting them onto the lots, we run into problems quite
often with setbacks and certain requirements. On this particular
lot, the reason we are where we are in the construction is that
when we designed the home we did take into consideration all the
setbacks. When he wrote a summary of the requirements for this
lot, the requirement was to not build below 953 feet. So, he
designed the home under that assumption not realizing there was a
drainage and utility easement at that corner of the garage. His
impression was that they could build within the 953 line which is
what they are proposing. The reason we are constructing at this
point in the way we are is that we could get a building permit
without having a foundation shown on that easement. The City
would allow them to build the qarage with an angle and
cantilevered. Upon putting together the purchase agreement
requirements, etc., they then found this was within the easement.
Mr. Horeck is the future owner of the home. He distributed
copies of his memo to the Fridley Planning Commission dated March
20, 1996, regarding the vacation of the easement.
Mr. Horeck stated they have a stairway from the garage going to
the lower level. They have elderly parents who are not in good
health and they expect their parents to come and live with them.
He expects to install a lift system which requires adequate
clearance by the corner of the stairway. The cantilever leaves
marginal room and could cause problems. Beyond that, they feel
the angled wall detracts from the house and the beauty of the
neighborhood. They have had a number of concerns expressed by
staff. The first was that they did not meet the setbacks. Mr.
Black has discussed this in detail. The second was that the
neighbors have serious objections. They have lived in the
neighborhood for 22 years. He went to each person listed on the
notice. With the exception of one person, they have all signed.
The one person objecting is at the meeting. They have spoken
about the objections and it comes down-to destroying the beauty
of the wetlands and not wanting the development in their backyard
in the first place. The development is here. The house will be
4.14
PLANNING COMMIBSION ME$TINa. MARCH 20. 1996 PAQE 15
built. They want to preserve and enjoy the wetland. They have
been avid about preserving the wetland. Their plan is to leave
the wetland and easement as it is but they want to get the
footings in for the garaqe. They have an elevation of 955 feet
at the back of the house at the door on the lower level. The
corner of the garaqe is an area of 35 square feet that would
encroach. If the wall is angled, the egress is tight if they
have a wheelchair situation.
Mr. Horeck stated he has no objection to the buffer area. They
plan to leave the area wild, clean up as much as they can and
keep it as natural as they can. They have two places that are a
problem. The first is the 35 square feet at the angled wall and
the other is one footing for a deck in the very back corner. He
does not see how they are going to upset anyone's view by making
the garage the right shape. They have no neighbors that will be
affected. This is a reasonable request and he hopes to get
approval.
Mr. Reyes stated he is speaking in support of staff's
recommendation that the wetland and drainage easement be
retained. He was aware of the restrictions and covenants. These
were done for many good reasons, includinq the preservation of
the wetlands and retaining the natural beauty. He is concerned
about this request. In his experience, the developer has already
encroached on property. His next door neighbor had his land
encroached upon by a bulldozer which leveled everythinq there.
That neighbor has resolved the matter but the developer did not
have permission to do that. He is concerned that this request,
though for a minimum amount of space, can end up being different
than what is expected. He is concerned that what is being asked
for may not be the final product. This ar�a has had a lot of
water runoff in the last few years. He is concerned that the
home was started before this request was made. It is close to
the wetland as it is. He is surprised that a home of that size
is going in that close to a body of water. He would support that
the land and easement be retained as they are.
Mr. Saba asked if there was any other way to do this without
giving up the entire easement, such as by a variance.
Ms. McPherson stated the issue is not a setback requirement.
Mr. Newman stated he does not like the fact that, if the Planning
Commission approves the vacation, it allows a home to be within
1.5 feed of a dedicated wetland but the City has no ordinance
requiring a setback. The surveyor may have made an error. If
so, we have to correct that mistake. This request is to correct
the delineation.
Mr. Oquist stated the rec,�uest is not to build into the wetland.
4.15
PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 20. 1996 PAQ$ 16
It is still 1.5 feet away. He thought they could assure Mr.
Reyes in making sure this is constructed properly.
Mr. Newman stated he would assume, if they added a stipulation,
that we want the edge of that wetland clearly marked and staked
during the construction period, that would be acceptable so it is
clear to the builders, neighbors and City inspectors where the
line is.
Mr. Sielaff stated he is concerned about a broader issue. One
can argue that the easement is accurate or not accurate. He is
concerned about other drainage easements that are done and what
this does when they review other requests that come up. The
lines are put on paper for a reason and now we are starting to
move those lines a little more and then someone requests a little
more. Where to you then draw the line? He is conaerned from a
broader perspective. He has no qualms that the owner will take
care of his property and take care of the wetlands, but he sees a
broader issue.
Mr. Oquist stated this easement was arbitrarily placed there
where in other situations they are well defined easements along
lot lines.
Mr. Newman recommended, when they are done, that staff look at an
ordinance specifying setbacks from a wetland. Since we do not
now have such an ordinance in place, he did not think they could
impose it in this case.
Mr. Saba stated he could go along with that recommendation. He
would also like to see a setback ordinance for wetlands.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend
approval of Vacation Request, SAV #96-01, by Imperial Homes,
Inc., to vacate that part of the drainage and utility easement as
dedicated on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition, described as
follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 7
distant 65.10 feet east from the northwest corner of said Lot 7;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 28 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds East along the west line of said drainage and utility
easement 64.13 feet; thence South 38 degrees 00 minutes East
32.00 feet; thence North 24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds West
92.63 feet to a point on said north line distant 12 feet east of
said point of beginning; thence South 77 degrees 31 minutes 44
seconds West 12.00 feet to the point of beginning. Except the
north 5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Royal Oak Court
N.E., with the following stipulationz
l. The edge of the wetland be clearly marked at not greater
than l0-foot intervals so all concerned_ persons can monitor.
4.16
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 17
Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the lack of consideration
by the construction company going into the neighbor's property
and beinq careless.
Ms. McPherson updated the commission on this issue. An error was
made by the subcontractor on one of the lots. Staff immediately
worked with the petitioner and the neighboring property owner to
bring resolution and correct the error. They have re-vegetated
and re-planted what was destroyed. As a result, in order to
enforce the 15-foot no cut zone, staff has required the
petitioner to install orange snow fencing to prevent sub-
contractors from misunderstanding where the construction area is.
Staff is holding a performance bond of the petitioner as well.
Staff have put mechanics in place to prevent further inadvertent
encroachment. This will apply to this lot as well.
IIPON A VOIC]3 VOTL � WITH i[8. MODIa, MR. NEWMAN, i[R. EONDRICIC, MR.
OQIIIBT� AND MR. SAHA VOTING AYE, AND MR. SIELAFF VOTINQ NAY�
CBAIRPERSON NEWMl�T DECLARL'rD T88 MOTION BY A MAJOItITY VOTE.
Ms. McPherson stated vacation requests require a public hearing.
The City Council on April 8th will establish the public hearing
for April 22. The City Council will consider this request on
April 22.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend that
staff review and evaluate the possibility of adoptinq a wetland
setback ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated this may be included in the shoreline
ordinance.
Mr. Newman thought this would get buried there. He felt this
should be part of the zoning requirements.
IIPON A VOIC$ VOTB, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPSRSON NEWMAN DBCLARED
THL MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOQSLY.
4. RECEIVF THE MTNLTTES �F THF HOi7STNG & REDEVEIAPMENT AUTHORITY
OF FEBRUARY 8. 1996
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of
February 8, 1996.
IIPON A VOIC$ VOTS, ALL VOTING AYF, CHAIRPBRSON NEWMAN D$CLARED
THE MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING O�
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
4.17
PLANNING COMMISSION MRETING. MARCH 20, 1996 PAGB 18
MO_ TION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modiq, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of February 14, 1996.
UPON A VOICE VOTB, ]►LL VOTIN(i AY$, CHAIRPERSON �TSWMA�T DECLARED
THT MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOQSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 4UALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1996
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
meeting of February 20, 1996.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALI� VOTINC� 11YE, CBAIRPERSON NFWMAN DECLARED
THL MOTION CARRIBD DNANIMOIISLY.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hickok stated the first neighborhood meeting in Hyde Park
regarding the Frank's Used Car site had been conducted. Many
residents would prefer to see a single-family development.
Others had some interesting comments regarding a townhouse
development.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the
meeting.
DPON A VOICL VOTB� ALL VOTIW(� AYTs, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DBCLARBD
THL MOTION CARRIBD AND THE MARCH 20, 1996� PLANNING COMMI88ION
MEETING ADJOQRNED AT 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
,
,� � �
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
4.18
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSIaN.MEETING, March 20, 1996
4r��
�
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted for a second garage over 240
square feet. The petitioner proposes to construct a 22' x 36' attached garage and keep the
existing 12' x 24' tuck-under garage.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
The petitioner was recen�y granted a variance in January of 1996 to reduce the setback of
an accessory structure opening orrto the side street from 25 feet to 17 feet to allow the
construction of a 22' x 36' attached garage. A condition of the variance approval required
conversion of the existing tuck-under garage to living space, or approval of a special use
permit for a second garage over 240 square feet. This request satisfies the stipulation
requirements.
The petitioner proposes to utilize the tuck-under garage for the family car and the proposed
attached garage for boat storage, a hobby shop, and storage of a second f�mily car. The
City has in similar situations in the past, allowed two garages and two driveways to exist.
The petitioner is intending to remove an 8' x 10' utility shed also located on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the
City Council. The Commission voted to add Stipulation #2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the special use permit, SP #96-01, with one
stipulation:
1. The petitioner shall remove the existing 8' x 10' utility shed within one year of completion
of the garage addition.
2. The petitioner shall remove the off-street parking space within one year of completion of
the garage addition.
5.01
Staff Report
SP #96-01, by Ronald Zac�cowski
Page 2
Petition For.
Location
of Property:
Legal Description
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availabifity
af Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Site Planning
Issues:
PROJECT DETAILS
A special use permit for a second garage..
314 Hugo Street N.E.
Lots 29 - 32, Block A, Rivetview Heights
10,200 square feet
Sloping toward the streets (comer lot)
Typical suburban; trees, sod, shrubs, etc.
R-1, Single Family Dwelling; Rivervie�w Heights; 1922
Connected
Hugo and Ruth Streets
N/A
' S.02
Staff R�ort
SP #96-01, by Ronald Zaczkowski
Page 3
REQUEST
The petitioner requests that a special use peimit be grar�ted i�r a second garage. If
approved, the petitioner w�ould be allowed to maintain a 12' x 24' e�dsting tuck-under
garage. The petitioner was recendY 9rar�ted a variance to construct a 22' x 36'
attached garage.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The subject parcel is located in the southeast comer of the intersection of Hugo and
Ruth S`treets in the Rivervie�w Heights neighborliood. ln 1964, a 26 foot by 42 foot
single f�mily dwelling with a single car "tuck-under" style garage was constn�cted.
Also loca#ed on the property is a 8' x 10' storage shed.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 22' x 36' attached garage along the west
side of the split level dwelling. The petifioner has _ indicated that the existing tuck-
under garage would be used for the family car. The proposed garage addition
would be used for a second car, storage of a boat, and a hobby shop. The
petittioner, as an altemative, could use the tuck-under garage for the hobby shop and
store both vehicles and the boat in the new garage. This altemative would allow the
petitioner to reduce the ovefiead door to a service door and w�ould also allow
removal of all har�dsurface in the frorrt yard with the exc�tion of a sidewalk to the
st►'eet which v+rould allow loading of materials for the hobby shop and access to the
front door of the stn�cture. The petitioner has indicated that he will remove the 8' x
10' utility shed also located on the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of special use
permit request, SP #96-01, with one stipulation:
1. The petitioner shall remove the existing 8' x 10' utility shed within one year of
completion of the garage additi�on.
ADJACENT SITES
WEST:
SOUTH:
Zoning: R-1, Single Famify Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
' S.03
Land Use: Residerrtial
Land Use: Residential
Staff Report
SP #96-01, by Ronald Zaczkowski
Page 4
EAST:
NORTN:
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dweliing
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request
to the City Council. The Commission discussed the altematives presented by staff,
however, did not feel it was an issue.
Comprehensi�e
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in
this location.
No one from the audience spoke regarding the request.
5.04
February 16, 1996
Regarding SpeciaZ Use Permit
To Whom It May Concern:
My wife and I have lived at 314 Hugo St. in Fridley since 1965,
31 years. We feel this is a very stable neighborhood and we
would remain in our home long after we retire.
I would like to keep the tuck under garage for our family car,
gas grill and snow blower.
I have obtained a variance to build a 3 stall garage. One stall
I would use as the second vehicle garage and the 2nd stall for
storage of boat, with the remaining space for storage for lawn
care machines and hobby shop.
I will remove the retaining wall along the existing drive and the
off street parking area next to Hugo Street. I will also remove
a 8x10 utility shed on the south east corner of the property.
The above will be completed within one year of completion of the
new garage.
Ronald O. Zaczkowski
5.05
SP ��96-01
Zaczkowski
N
S P #96-01
5.0 314 H ug o Street
s
LOCATION MAP
� .__ ____
_ � - .
:� , \
i � �i
i
, �� �
�
.� .__
�
r°i�----
�
"• �
r... � '�'1
�� ��
� �, ,�
� � p
u `�
�
• '`'� �' ��
;
�
W� ,
�-
S + Z
� �=-- ---- „
C } \ -- j r.
�,
" � ^
J � � , ' L._
� � � {S��
1 { �
1 �� f
i �
�
E
�
,
;
�
,
�
;
,
�
�
SP ��96-01 {n
� Ronald Zaczk7twski
�` ---- -- --
------ ��.__�.._.._..____.
. _.--�_..
I
�
W
�`
- a
Tuck-und r Garage
�� � � � �
1
i
I
1
� N
� _..._..�__ _.
�
;
. ��
--, �
� ,��
� �-
� `
. �
��
,
;
�-,h
�� �
5.07
0
�
A
9-
.o
0
. 1�
� , Q �.
3 6 t ��e1Q µ'"5
9 � -i-k- -q � - _E._.,,'"""► J
f
r�'
_ . �'
�
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner requests that a lot split be approved to split Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde
Park, the same being 276-78 58th Avenue N.E. into two lots. Lot A would measure 77' x
135' and have a lot area of 10,406 square feet, and Lot B would measure 65' x 134.9' and
have a tot area of 8,839 square feet.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
The subdivision ordinance (Section 211.05) permits the City Council to approve reductions in
lot are�as and lot width ff it finds that unique conditions exist. Issues related to the request
can be summarized as:
1. Lot B will be 65 feet wide versus 80 feet, and the lot area is 8,839 square feet versus the
required 9,000 square feet.
2. A duplex is located on Lot A. Curre►�tly, the duplex on Lot A does not meet the required
rear yard setback. Should the lot split be approved, the duplex will not meet the required
iront yard setback.
3. The detached two car garage iocated on Lot B will be iocated on a vacant lot should the
lot split be grar�ted. The City Code does not allow accessory stnactures to be located on
a lot prior to the principal structure (Secction 205.04.05.A). The garage is proposed to be
removed if a building permit is not issued within 12 months of the approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the
City Council. The Commission voted to amend Stipulation #2.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the lot split request with the dimensions
of Lots A and B as proposed on the survey dated 2/1/96, with the following stipulations:
6.0 �
Staff Report
L.S. #96-Oi, by Valley Investrnent Co.
Page 2
1. The petitioner acknowledges that the City's action cre�ates a noncor�forming front
yard setback for the existing duplex..
2. If the petitioner fails to obt�ain a building permit within 12 mor�ths, and a certificate
of occupancy within 18 mor�ths of approval of the bt split, then the petitioner
shalt remove the garage on Lot B. -
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a bng, narrow buildable area and
shall design a house to fit that area.
After further analysis, staff also recommends the fiollowing s�tipulation:
4. The petitioner shall provide adequate parking for the duplex
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For.
Location
of Property:
A lot split to create a single iamily lot
276-78 58th Avenue N.E.
Legal Description Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together with all that
part of the
of Property: vacated a11ey lying west ofi said lots and lying between the
Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 1, and the _.
Westeriy extension of the South line of said Lo# 3.
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
142.44' x 134.91'
Flat
19,216.6 square feet
Typ'ical suburban; trees, sod, shnabs, etc.
S-1, Hyde Park; 1886
Located in 58th Avenue
6.�2
Staff Report
L.S. #96-01, by Vatiey Irfvestment Co.
Page 3
Vehicular 58th Avenue; 3rd Street
Access:
Pedestrian N/A
Access: _
Engtneering N/A
Issues:
Site P�anning
Issues;
REQUEST
The petitioner requests that the Planning Commission and City Council approve a lot
split to split Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, the same being 276-78 58th Avenue
N.E. into two lots. Lot A would measure 77' x 135' and have a 1ot area of 10,406
square feet, and Lot B would measure 65' x 134.9' and have a lot area of 8,839 square
feet.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The property was originally platted in i886, and zoned R-2, Tw�o Family Dwelliru�. !n
1959, a 32' x 74' duplex was constructed on the property. In 1970, the parcel was -
rezoned from R-2, Tw�o Family Dwelling to G2, General Business. In 1978, the City
established a special dis�ict, enti�ed "S-1, Hyde Park District". The irrterrt of the S-1
district is to encourage residential investmerrt and redevelopmerrt of commercial
properties to residerrtial uses {single iamily) in the Hyde Park area.
Building permit actiVity on the parcel includes the iollowing:
1960 - Construction of a 22' x 23' detached garage
1970 - Construction of a 12' x 20 addition
1977 - Constnrction of an 8' x 12' deck
1981 - Constnaction of a 16' x 1 S' deck
In 1986, the issue of a lot split was first resear+ched by staff at the request of the
previous property owners, the Broders.
6.03.
Staff Report
L.S. #96-01, by Valley Investrner�t Co.
Page 4
ANALYSIS
The subject parcel measures 19,216 square feet. The proposed lot spiit would create
two lots; Lot A on which the existing dup{ex would be located measuring 77' x 135' and
having a lot area of 10,406 square feet, and Lot B measuring 65' x 134' and having a
lot area of 8,839 square feet Lot A meets the minimum lot area requirements for a
duplex lot, and also meets the minimum lot width requirements. Lot B, however, is
deficient. in lot width; 65 feet versus 80 feet, and also deficient in lot area, 8,839 square
feet versus 9,000 square feet.
The lot area and lot width are not excessivly below the minimum requiremerrts. The City
has, in fact, granted variances to lot area to 5,500 square feet, and lot width to 60 feet.
Approving the lot split also provides an opportunity for the private market to invest in
Hyde Park.
Located on the westerly portion of the parcel is a two family dwelling. During the 1986
analysis by staff, it was deterrnined that 3rd Street, because it is the shorter frontage,
was the front yard regardless of the fact that the property was addressed from 58th
Avenue. The dwelling is located 13.5 feet from the westeriy lot line, which would be
considered the rear yard if 3rd Street is the front yard. As a result of this determination,
the property curren�y has a nonconforming rear yard setback. The rear yard
requirement is 35.61 feet. If the lot split is approved, 58th Avenue will become the front
yard. The duplex is located 14 feet from the frorrt property line. This is nonconforrning.
The City's action wili cause a"swapping" of nonconformities.
The existing duplex curre.ntly utilizes both an attached garage facing 58th Avenue as well
as the detached garage adjacent to 3rd Street. If the lot spJit is approved, the detached
garage will be located on the newly-created vacant lot. The duplex is required to
provide four parking stalls. This can be accommodated by paving additional parlcing
ad}'acent to the attached garage of the dupfex. The deiached garage cannot be allowed
to remain on the vacant properly. Section 205.04.05.A of the Fridley City Code states,
"No accessory building or stnacture shall be permitted on any lot prior to the time of the
issuance of the building perm+t for the consfiaction of the princip{e buitding.°
The petitioner could relocate the detached garage onto Parcet A; however, this would
increase the lot coverage from 25% to 28%, requiring a variance prior to relocation of
the garage.
�� � ,
Staff Report
L.S. #96-01, by Valley irnestmerrt Co.
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the lot split request with the dimensions �
of Lots A and B as proposed on the survey dated 2/1/96, wiifi the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner acknowledges that the City's action creates a noncoM�cming iront
yard setback for the existi�g duplex..
2. If the petitioner fails fio obtain a building permit within 12 mor�ths, and a certificate
of occupancy within 18 morrths of approval of the lot split, then the pe�tioner
shall remove the garage on Lot B.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow buildable area and
shall design a house to fit that area.
4. The petitioner shall provide adequate parking for the.duplex.
ADJACENT SITES
WEST; Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park Land Use: Duplex
SOUTH: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Paric Land Use: Single Family
EAST: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park Land Use: Vacant
Commenciai/
Redevelop-
ment site
NORTH: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park Land Use: Single Family
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to
the City Council.
Comprehensi�
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this
location.
No one from the audience spoke regar+ding this request.
6.05
,,;,
RESOLIITION NO. - 1996
RESOLUTION APPROVZNG A SUBDIVIBION, LOT
SPLIT� L.B. �96-01, TO SPLIT PROPBRTY INTO
TWO SBPARATE PARCBLB, GSNERALLY LOCATSD AT
276-78 58th AVENIIB N.E.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a lot split at the
, 1996 meeting, and stipulations attached as
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, such approval was to split Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27,
Hyde Park, together with all that part of the vacated alley lying
west of said lots and lying between the Westerly extension of the
North line of said Lot l, and the Westerly extension of the South
line of said Lot 3 into two parcels as described:
Parcel A The West 65 feet of Lot l, 2, and 3, Block 2?, Hyde
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured along the
North line of said Lot 1, and along the South line of
said Lot 3, together with all that part of the vacated
alley lying West of said lots, and lying between the
Westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 1, and
the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 3.
Parcel B That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park,
Anoka County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 65 feet
thereof as measured along the North line of said Lot i
and along the South line of said I,ot 3.
WHEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey
from the owner; and
WHEREAS, such approval will split the property into two separate
parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the
petitioner to record this lot split at Anoka County within six
months of this approval or else such approval shall be null and
void.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
THIS DAY OF , 1996.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
s.os
Page 2- Resolutian No. - 1996
EXHIBIT A
1. The petitioner acknowledges that the City's action creates a
nonconforming front yard setback.
2. If the petitioner fails to obtain a building permit within
12 months, or a certificate of occupancy within 18 months,
of approval of the lot split, then the petitioner shall
remove the garage on Lot B.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow
buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area.
s.�%
L.�. tryd-u�
vail
LS #96-01
1LLVCJLllICLLI. vv.
276-78 58th Avenue
s.os
LOCATION MAP
� .
. .
L.S. 4�96-01
C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
�o�v a�vL� P�sox
PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
RBGLST�RBD IA1 YLNA►., �� IO�d LICI�NSBD �Y CITY OA XINN�APOLLS
P.O. 80X 8940 �IINNEAPOUS, uINNES4TA 55408-0900
PHONE (612� 824-4310 �AX (612) 953-3074
s� a 30 60 90 Feet
58TH AVENUE N.E.
142.44
S89'14'S6"E
.� ;.;;:T ---77.00--- --- 65.44
� i�i
Er U1 ., j PORC$
� s� .;� DBCIC . �
W
Q'� -.�; - 12.7 'd' GAR.
�� � r
.r
�� � �
� I , 12.0
W ra
� � ui
� �-+ .� ��
If� � a �
M o o -.
�„i G� o
� ��
:
-a -
�
�A
.� Q
�
16. i
� 1 • • V
1 ��� 1~C
� � !
a
a � ,V
o t° �Cy
�' � �
N; ' �'
�
. �Q
12 '
.: r; �.
. �
2 0
�
M DECK
21.�!
8' CHAIN L[NK
W
W �
O � "�
�o
O
.-C+"}i O
O
z
N �
� �
�Q'� :
� .-7 �
a�
m�
o? W
�m
•M d,
:'
�
� ..� C"M
a � .-i
o �,; CV
o �
� r+ CO
�
�
�
� o
.. �
w
��.
-
„
W
z
W
� -
�
A
�ry�
r� ✓
�,.' . ' � --,77.40 --- __ 11.80�: y � ;'12.80 . i ,
� " 65.54 . }.;,' -1$.90 : i
��-- '� ; � -
142.54 �,
N89'22'35"yY--io.i4�:� 4;�8.s4----- --�� � j
�:
_�
m 28.3 ' �
� NOTES: DENOTES PROPERT� CORNER.
17.0 1-STORY 2 ' DENOTES FENCE LWE. .
2 �E--'� ; �
IEGAL DESCRIPTION: WN4. 577Q E 3 PARCEL CONTAINS 19.245 ��UARE
Lote 1. 2�C S, Block 27, Hyde Park, Anoka FEET. _;
County, Ninneaota, together with all that part oi 4) ALL BEARINGS SHO1fN ARE `�iSSUMED
the vecated nlley ]yine lifest of said Iote, e�nd l,3►in� DATUM. �;
bet�een the 1Peaterly. ertension o! the North line
of aaid Lot 1� aund,..the lfeeter�,v eztenaion of the NQTE: T�S 3URVEY CERTffICATE IS NOT VALII?� 1PITHOUT
$outh line oi sai�, I,ot�-3.': .'-' ,. ,„ AN ORlGINAL SIGNATURE AND A RAISED ; SEpL.
��'= ,�..�. .�}'"`' . COPYRIGHTQC 1988, C.E. COULTER ec ASSOCIATES, INC.
I HBRBBY C�RTffY TB�t '�tIS. EUR�IQY, _ PL�i OR R6POBT �AS PR}�ARF� B1'
IiE QR UNDER ltY DIRBCt SUP�RVIS[ON AND '!'BAT I A!f A DULY REGISPFRED GZiENT: VALLEY A'�5? RBALTY INC.
0 BR 'i8B 1A1fS `�F 17� �TATB OF 1tIIVNESOTI.
: JOB N0. 11.554 SCdLB: !' = 30'
OdTE: 1�96 REG. N0. 13782 BR./PG. 78s/50-'S2 SHB�T 1 OF 2
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: April 4, 1996
TO: � �Iliam Bums, City Manager ,��
fi
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Establish Public Hearing for April 22, 1996 for a Vacation
Request, SAV #96-01, by Imperial Homes, Inc.; 1435 Royal
Oak Court N.E.
The Planning Commission reviewed the vacation request, SAV #96-01, to vacate a
portion of a drainage and utility easement on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition.
The City Charter requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing for all vacation
requests.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Ciiy Council establish April 22, 1996 as the date of the
public hearing for this vacation request.
MM/dw
M-96-148
7.01
SAV ��96-01
�
SAV #96-01
-� �Roya1 Oaks Realty
7.02
LOCATION MAP
Royal Oaks Realty
C���'«iC�'�� o� Sl��'���'
FOR: Marcel Eibensteiner
�
1,
1,
952.98
S ���3�� 4�" w
86-55 �,
�
65•�- �
�
�
� �- 6.07
� \ Finish Grade ��
�
�
Z Rear WO Elev �
�' \ �- 955.23
� 5 955 0
� �
G �
r �o � � �
� � � �
'< O_ �A ` �
p �O i
� N. ��� :
�
� � l-
� ��
,\
.
__ �+
� � �.
954
�Area of
Easeme�t t� be vocQted
i �a� DelTn �
� o� _� y87°
3
� �.9� G a,_ : _
, '�-�— -
\ `�i
1' .::
W :
�\ = �:?�
a
1����':,
.�
1 � r � ��'
\J G 0 �� .i� �,i
U�QO` .. . - ������/�
��
ipQSea N
Q E����.
,1�%�g 63 � � �
a9�6����
� �" g" � /
����°4g5 �
S ,�
5�---
a
� � � ��
� ?
K
'"�'���
� ��
�,
ii � � '
�`
�v'�
�
� �` �:
;� s �
��So 00
�O�
O<��e F
N' � 'o
� s
+ �.ss° �
J
\ � \
� v�����= 61.95 �^\
R _ 7� 5g 2q.°�,.
50 00
C. 8RG S 78 � p'25" E
�O �
_ �� O��
Diag.:94.1 x 48.7 - 105.95
02 DENOTES PROPOSED E�EVATION.
x10i1.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVA�ION.
/' DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE.
DE T
o �
. Ys�/
9� ��
I
I�
m
�
I M
� � = 42.96
� _ �2°00'27•,
R = 205.00
��
NOi�TH
= 950.9
O�
O
O
�9�,L
-���
F,9
s��1
F�
bment Line T
�nd Delk�sotion point
��i9
� Wetl�d DeIMa
per . Pat Arltg
9ss.oi April 29, 1994
Contour
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
GARAGE FLOOR =963.5
TOP OF BLOCK =963.8
LOWEST FLOOR =953.7
� NO ES WOOD HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET. & 955.0
'7-03 13 crs wo
Lot 7, Block 1, TOTINO GRACE ADDITION, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Scale 1"= 30' O Denotes Iron Mon. Bearing Datum: Assumed Job No.
�, We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
�� a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the
location of ali buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments,
if ony, from or on said land. E, ����u�� rj N
Dated this 15th day of February 1996 Minnesota License No. ssos
355856T � Drwg By BAO ' Disk �
�L. �:7- �i� � ��, ���i
LAND �'-�URYEYO#�S
918� LEXINGTON A1�. NO.
CI#?CLE �'IN�S, MINNE30TA
55P�1�-362b tEL. �S�o-5556
71
City of Fridley
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager ��% PW96-076
lZ `�!!
FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director �
DATE: Apri18, 1996
SUBJECT: Consideration of Change Order No. 4 to Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction
Project No. 211
In preparing to finalize the Locke Lake dam project, we identified that there was an
increase in concrete reinforcing steel placed in the dam structure. Accordingly, a change
order is required to cover the increase in steel based upon the unit price of the bid
This change order identifies an increase of 7,493 pounds of steel. The original contract bid
was $25,300, this is an increase of $4,121.15 for a total quantity of $29,421.15.
Recommend the City Council approve Change Order No. 4 to Lunda Corporation for the
Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211 for a total amount of $29,421.1 S.
JGF:cz
Attachment
8.� �
5
assoc��-r�s
March 29, 1996
Jon Thompson
City of Fridley
Public Works Department
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Locke Lake Dam
Change Order for Reinforcement
,
Dear Mr. Thompson:
I am w�iting this letter with respect to the change in the quantity of concrete reinforcement
during the reconstruction of the Locke Lake Dam. The estimated quantity in the bid documents
was 46,000 Ibs. The actuai weight of the concrete reinforcement based on the shop drawings
was 53,493 Ibs. In June of 1994, our staff reviewed the shop drawings and agreed with the
53,493 !b. ftgure.
Because the construction contract was based on a unit price of 55 cents per pound for concrete
reinforcement, the dollar amount paid €or this item was increased accordingly. The scheduled
value of $29,421.15 is the correct number to be paid for concrete reinforcement under the work
actually completed. I understand that you will initiate a change order for this item to clarify this
issue.
If you have further questions regarding this, please call me.
Sincerely,
Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc.
, mes R. Bakken, P.E.
Manager, Water Resource Enginesring
JRB:dIp
cc: John Flora, DPW
j:ljrb1960329i.doc
Ower. Ayres & Associates. Inc. 00-0001.11
Engineers/Architects/Scieniists/Phorogrammetrists �.�2
3�.3 Oak;�ccd Nills Farkway. P.G. Sux 1580. cau Ciaire, WI 54702-1�90. (715) 83a-3i61. FAX (775) 831-i500
t��in•?7 On :nr�t,�rr: ��02r .
CITY OF FR,IDLEY
ENGINEERING DEPAR.TMENT
6431 UIVIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
April 8, 1996
Lunda Construction Company
P O Box 228
Little Chute, WI 54140-0228
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 4, Locke Lake Dam Restoration, Project No. 211
Gentlemen:
You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Locke Lake Dam
Restoration Project No. 211 by adding the following work as directed by the engineer:
Additions:
Item
1. Structural steel (as indicated on the initial
summary sheet of Ayres and Associates)
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS:
Quantitv
7.493 Ib
Price
$0.55
Amount
$4,121.15
TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,��
Original Cont�act Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $537,375.75
Contract Change Order
No. 1 (Deletion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,306.50
No. 2 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,823.39
No. 3 (Additron) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,265.57
No. 3 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,121.15
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5509�279.36
C; � 7
Lunda Constru�tion Company
Change Orde� No. 4
April 8, 1996
Page 2
Submitted and approved by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 8th day of April, 1996.
Prepared by
Checked by
Approved and accepted this
Approved and accepted this
day of
� �
: � _., �
��
J n .�Flora, P.E.
' ctor of Public Works
1996 by
LUNDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Dennis Behnke, Project Coordinator
day of , 1996 by
: 1 �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
William J. Nee, Mayor
William W. Burns, City Manager
TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNB, CITY MANAGER���
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCB DIRECTOR
PAIIL 8. HANSEN, STAFF ACCOiJNTANT
SIIBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1996 BIIDGLT
DATE: April 4, 1996
Attached you will find a resolution amending appropriations to the
1996 budget in accordance with the City Charter.•
The adjustments listed have arisen as a result'of donations,
unforseen expenditures, and reclassification of account codings.
All adjustments have been informally approved by you through the
Budget Reappropriation Form. We request that Council approve the
amendment of the attached budg�ts.
RDP/ph
Attachment
9.01
RESOLIITION � - 1996
A RBSOLIITION AIITHORIZING CHANGES IN
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GBNERAL FIIND FOR THE
FIRST QIIARTBR OF 1996.
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives
that provide for future charges and modifications that will allow
for a better delivery of service, and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other
necessary changes into the adopted budget for 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Fund budget for the
following divisions be amended as follows:
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
DONATlON - FIRE
DONATION - FIRE
DONATION - RECREAl10N
TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
FI RE
GENERAL FUND
4,500 FRIDLEY UONS CLUB - DECONTAMINAl10N AREA
150 MEDTRONIC - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIRE
SAFETY PROGRAM
300 FRIDLEY VFW - T-SHIRTS & SINGLETS FOR
YOUTH WRESTLING
$4.950
SUPPUES/CHARGES 150 EI.EMENTARY SCHOOL FIRE SAFETY PROGRAM
CAPITAL OUTLAY 4,500 CONSTRUCTION OF DECONTAMINATION AREA
RENTAL INSPECTIONS SUPPUES/CHARGES 1,170 AECLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNT CODING
CAPITAL OUTLAY (1,170) RECLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNT CODING
RECREATION SUPPUES/CHARGES 300 FRIDLEY UONS CLUBS - 49ER DAYS
TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS $4.950
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
SUPPUES/CHARGES 25,000 PORTION OF INYESTIGATION COSTS FOR
UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS AT THE FRIDLEY
MUNICIPAL CENTER
TOTAL APPROPRIA710N ADJUSTMENTS $25.000 90% OF COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE
MINNESOTA PEfROLEUM TANK RELEASE
COMPENSATION BOARD (PETROBOARD)
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
_TH DAY OF , 1996.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK9.OZ
�
CffY OF
FRIDLtY
LICENSES
APRIL 8,1996
Type of License: By: AAproved By: Fees:
BILLIARDS
Fridley VFW Post 363 Floyd Pulju David Sallman
1040 Osborne Rd NE Public Safety
Fridley, MN 55432 Director
Moose Lodge of Fridley Dee Dee's Fun " "
8298 University Ave NE Machines & Candy
Fridley, MN 55432
Sharx Sports Bar & Nightclub Richard DeFoe "
3720 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
BOWLING ALLEY
Fridley Rec & Service Co Donald Savelkoul "
6310 Hwy 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
CIGARETTE
Best Western Kelly Inn Ke11y Fridley Ventures "
5201 Central Ave NE
Fridley, Mn 55432
Fridley Rec. & Service Automatic "
6310 Hwy 65 NE Sales
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley VFW Post 363 Floyd Pulju "
1040 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Holiday Plus #487 Lyndale Terminal "
250 57th Ave NE Judy Thompson
Fridley, MN 55432
Liquor Annex Mike Larson "
6289 Highway 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
11.01
�
$40.00
$40.00
$90.00
" $360.00
" $30.00
" $30.00
" $60.00
" $30.00
m
Exempt
�
CfiY OF
FRIDLEY
� .. . � . . �
LICENSES
April 8, 1996
Liquor Warehouse Mike Larson
6538 Mississippi St NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Mike's Gas & Grocery Michael Deconcini
6485 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
Moose Lodge of Fridley Dee Dee's Fun
8298 University Ave NE Machines & Candy
Fridley, Mn 55432
Sandee's Braam Investments
6490 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Sharx Sports Bar & Nightclub Richard DeFoe
3720 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
Snyder's Drug Store #18 Elaine MacDonald
6582 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Stuart Anderson's Cattle Co ARG Enterprises
5696 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Texas Foods, Inc Raymond Jedneak
1301 Mississippi St
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley Moose Lodge #38 Ron Marcucci
8298 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley VFW Post 363 Floyd Pulju
1040 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, NIN 55432
11.02
David Sallman Exempt
Public Safety
Director
" " $30.00
m
m
m
a�
m
m
n
�
" $30.00
" $30.00
" $60.00
" $30.00
" $30.00
" $30.00
" $85.00
" $60.00
t
Cf1Y OF
FRI4LEY
Stanton O. Berg
6025 Gardena Ln NE
Fridley, MN 55432
: . ., �
Same
LICENSES
April 8, 1996
David Sallman $25.00
Public Safety
Director
American Legion Dennis Burke "
7365 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Brownberry 0utlet Store D. Hanson "
1051 E Moore Lake Dr NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Central Embers Henry Kristal "
5400 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Children's World ARA ��
5310 Monroe St NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley Moose Lodge #38 Ron Marcucci "
8298 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley VFW Post 363 Floyd Pulju "
1040 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Holiday Plus #487 Lyndale Terminal Co "
250 57th Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Hong Kong Kitchen Karen Kwan "
6562 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Joe DiMaggio's Sports Bar & Grill G. Vespa "
1298 E Moore Lake Dr NE
Fridley, MN 55432
'`11.03
" $45.00
" 545.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45. 00
" $45.00
�
CfiY OF
fRIDLEY
LICENSES
April 8, 1996
Map1e Lanes Restaurant M. Savelkoul
6310 Highway 65 NE �
Fridley, MN 55432
McGlynn's Bakery Marcia Wahlstrom
7350 Commerce Lane NE
Fridley, MiJ 55432
Medtronic Roy Newman
7000 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Mike's Gas & Grocery M. Deconcini
6485 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
Old Country Buffet #2 Buffets, Inc
6540 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Oriental House Meilan Chen Leuck
5865 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Sandee's Braam Investments
6490 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Sharx Sports Bar & Night Club R. DeFoe
3720 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
Shorewood Inn, Inc James Nicklow
6161 Hiay 6 5 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Snyder's Drug Sfiore #18 E. MacDonald
6582 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Stuart Anderson's Cattle Co ARG Enterprises
569b University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
� 11.04
David Sallman $45.00
Public Safety
Director
" " $45.00
m
m
�
m
m
m
m
m
m
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
" $45.00
r
�
CffY OF
fR(OLEY
LICENSES
April 8, 1Q96
Texas Foods, Inc Raymond Jedneak
1301 Mississippi St
Fridley, MN 55432
Wong's Gourmet Inc Park Wong
1254 E Moore Lake Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
TEMPORARY FOOD
Fridley/Col. Hts Kiwanis Barbara Dacy
6000 West Moore Lake Dr
Fridley, MN 55432
GAMBLING
Joe Dimaggio's Sports Bar George Vespa
1298 E Moore Lake Dr
Fridley, MN 55432 �
Maple Lanes Restaurant Same
6310 Highway 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432 ;
Sandees Braam Investments
6490 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Shorewood Inn James Nicklow
6161 Highway 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
PRIVATE GAS PUMP
Determan Welding & Tank Service J. Determan
1241 72nd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Kuether Distributing W.Kuether
6982 Highway 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Park Construction Co Same
7900 Beech St
Fridley, MN 55432
� 11.05
David Sallman " $45.00
Public Safety
Director
m
rr
n
�
� s
m
�
m
m
" $45.00
�� Exempt
" $300.00
". $300.00
" $300.00
" $300.00
" $30.00
" $30.00
" $30.00
�
�
CffY OF
FRro��r
Unity Medical Center
550 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
HOTEL/MOTEL
Best Western Kelly Inn
5201 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
JUNK YARD
Fridley Auto Parts
7300 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
OFF SALE BEER
Freedom Valu Center #58
'7600 NE University Ave
Fridley, MN 55432
Holiday Plus
250 57th Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Mike's Gas & Grocery
6485 E River Rd
Fridley, MN 55432
PDQ
620 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
SuperAmerica #4175
5667 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
SuperAmerica #4199
7299 Highway 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Texas Foods, Inc
6501 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
LICENSES
P:pri ] 8, 1996
Same
David Sallman $30.00
Public Safety
Director
Kelly Fridley Ventures "
Derek Haluptzok "
Erickson Oil Products "
Lyndale Terminal Co "
.
Mike Deconcini "
PDQ Stores of MN
Same
Same
R. Jedneak
11.06
�
m
�
m
" $600.00
" $350.00
" $60.00
" $60.00
" $60.00
�.� ��
�.� ��
" $60.00
" $60.00
�
cmr oF
FRIDLEY
LICENSES
April 8, 1996
Tom Thumb Food Store #141 Same
315 Osborne Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Twin Cities Stores,Inc Same
7298 Highway 65 NE #540
Fridley, 1�I1J 55432
CLUB ON SALE LIOUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR
Fridley American Legion M. Saltness
7365 Central Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Fridley V.F.W. F. Pulju
Social Club
1040 Osborne
Fridley, MN 55432
Loyal Order of Moose D. Knutson
8298 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
ON SALE BEER
Godfather's Pizza Same
7910 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Oriental House Restaurant M. Leuck
5865 University Ave
Fridley, MN 55432
University Station CYass Inc.
7610 University Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55432
PEDDLERS/SOLICITORS/TRANSIENT MERCHANTS
American Cancer Society S. Hansmann
2265 Como Ave Suite 10
St Paul, MN 55110
Avon Melissa Dudding
6341 Hwy 65 NE Apt 1
Fridley, MN 55432
�.1:�1.07
David Sallman $60.00
Public Safety
Director
�� " $60.00
�
m
m
T
z
�
m
�
" $500.00
Sunday$200.00
" $650.00
Sur�day$200. 00
" $650.00
Stuiday$200. 00
" $325.00
" $325.00
" $325.00
" Exempt
" None
�
�
� o�
FRIDLEY
LICENSES `
April 8, 1996
Knights of Columbus Joseph Check
6831 Hwy 65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
REFUSE HAULER
Aagard Sanitation, Inc A. Stone
3291 Terminal Dr.
Eagan, MN 55121
Ace Solid Waste Inc. D. Fredrickson
3118 162nd Lane NW
Andover, MN 55304
Aspen Waste Systems Inc R. Kircher
2523 Wabash Ave
St Paul, MN 55114
C& J Roll Off Service M. Johnson
P.O. box 41
Belle Plaine, MN 56011
Hilger Transfer A1 Kodet
8550 Zachary Ln
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Johnson Sanitation L. Johnson Jr.
125 Bunker Lk Blvd NW
Anoka, MN 55304
Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service Same
1214 Hall Ave
W.St Paul, MN 55118
Larry's Quality Sanitation Larry Saba
17210 Driscoll St NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
Pretzel's Sanitation L. Plessel
15323 Ramsey Blvd NW
Anoka, MN 55303
Randy's Sanitation Inc. R. Roskowiak
4351 U$ Hwy 12 SE
Delano, MN 55328
.� �.0�
David Sallman Exempt
Public Safety
Director
m
�
m
�
m
n
m
m
w
m
" $60.00
" $75.00
" $135.00
" $75.Q0
" $90.00
" $90.00
" $60.00
" $75.00
" $90.00
" $120.00
�
�
arY oF
fRIDLEY
' LICENSES
April 8, 1996
Twin City Sanitation inc R. Gersdorf
279 Meadowood Ln NE
North Oaks, MN 55127
United Waste Systems Ine K. Caneva
95 W Ivy ,
St Paul, MN 55117
Vasko Rubbish Removal Inc Same
920 Atlantic St
St Pau1, MN 55432
Walter's Rubbish G. Walter
P.O. BoX 67
Circle Pines, MN 55014
Waste Management Blaine L. Christen
10Q50 Naples St NE
Blaine, MN 55449
Woodlake Sanitary Service Inc Same
8661 Rendova St
Circle Pine, MN 55014
TREE REMOVAL
Allstate Tree Service D. Ley
7510 Jackson St NE
Fridley, MN 55432
G.L. Deden Tree Service G. Deden
17957 Iodine ST
Ramsey, MN 55303
Outside Services Inc. Same
P.O. Box 875
Anoka, MN 55303
Reliable Tree Service Inc P. Vagovich
6600 Brookview Dr NE
Fridley, MN 55432 �
� ;11.09
David Sallman
Public Safety
Director
�
w
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
$75.00
" $65.00
"$105.00
" $60.00
" $180.00
"$105.00
�
" $40.00
" $40.00
" $40.00
" $40.00
�
�
CIIY OF
FRIDIEY
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
400 Northtown Financial Plaza
200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489
ESTIMATES
APRIL 8,1996
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of March, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,135.34
Frederic W. Knaak, Esq.
Holstad and Larson, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of March, 1996: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,250.00
Schield Construction Co.
13604 Ferris Avenue South
Apple Vailey, MN 55124
Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization
Project No. 246
Estimate 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $108,085.89
12.01.
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
.. . . •�•..
TO: �Iliam Bums, City Manager�� ��� _
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Findings of Fact Establishing that a
New Environmental Assessment Worksheet is Not Required
for the Lake Pointe :Office Park, and Related Trunk Highway
65/West Moore Lake Drive/Central Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Background
The HRA entered into a Contract for Exclusive Negotiations with MEPC American
Properties, Inc. in December, 1995. Section 3.2 of the Contract requires the Authority
to be responsible for preparing any necessary environmental permits or reports, and
an lndirect Source Permit from the MPCA.
Prior to executing the contraet with MEPC, the HRA at its October 1995 meeting
approved a contract with Linda Fisher of Larkin Hoffman Daly Lindgren to coordinate
the environmental review permit processes. Jim Benshoof and Associates was hired _
to complete the traffic analysis, air quality analysis, and noise analysis required for the
Indirect Source Permit application.
On March 17, 1986, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing findings that a
full Environmental Impact Statement for Lake Pointe Corporate Center was not
required, and that the project does not have a potential for significant environmental
effects. The EAW which was completed for the City Council's 1986 approval was
used as a basis/outline to update in#ormation pertaining to the current effort to
develop the property.
Pumose of Resolution
After reviewing MEPC's proposed plan and completing a thorough analysis of the
issues identified in the previous EAW, it is staff and consultant's recommendation that
13.01
Lake Pointe Environmental Review
Apri) 4, 1996
Page 2
another EAW is r�ot necessary. The City, as the Responsible Govemmentai Unit
under EG�B ruies, has the ability to not require another EAW, if a"record" is .developed
which contains Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the decision.
The record must show that there have not been "substantial changes" in the proposed
development plan or in the immediate area which may affect the potential for -
significant adverse environmental effects.
Proposed Resolution and FindinQS of Fact
The attached findings and resolution outlines in summary form the analysis and work
completed by staff and consultants. Adopting the resolution does not negate or
preclude any of the City's tocal controls such as review of the Master Plan, platting .
requirements, or zoning approvals.
MEPC has:submitted its proposal for Master Plan approval as required by the -
Contract for Exclusive Negotiations. It proposes a square footage that is :
approximately 77,317 square feet tess than the original proposal submitted by
Woodbridge in 1986. The differences between the original proposal and the MEPC
proposal is documented in the attached findings.
It should be remembered that while there are a number of references to the MEPC
Master Plan proposal, the analysis also documents that there has been no significant
changes to the property or around the property which would require another
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement.
Indirect Source Permit
The HRA's consultants are nearing completion of an Indirect Source Permit
application for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approval. The permit application
will be submitted to the MPCA within the next week. The updated traffic, sir, and
noise analyses which Benshoof completed will be included in that analysis as well.
The requested City Council approval, however, is limited to adoption of the resolution
which Ms. Fisher has prepared. Although containing simiiar information, the lr�dire�t -�
Source Permit is a separate issue and does not require City Council approval prior to
application (a copy will be forwarded to the City Council and HRA when finished).
Hicthway 65 {rrtersection lmarovements
A major issue conceming the development is the necessity to improve the Highway
65 intersection. The updated traffic analysis conflrms the need to improve the
13.02
Lake Pointe Environmental Review
April 4, 1996
Page 3
intersection. The City has recently received federal funding to co�struct the
improvements. The next question to answer is when to build it.
Staff will be developing a timetable for City Council and HRA approval in the next 30
days. The federal funds may not be available until 1999, however, staff is researching
options to construct the improvements earlier and obtain reimbursement later.
Recommendation
!n sum, the findings outline that the MEPC proposal is less intensive than the original
plan and there have been no significant changes which would warrant additional
environmental review.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution as presented.
BD/dw
M-96-160
13.03
��
���f;
6.
,
n,.F
.:,
COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCfi 17. 1986
Councilman Gooclsgeed asked if there would be
Mr. Rosenba�mn stated the art center would
irYter�st in art. - /
. ...........: .:.. ... .... ..—�
ng f or yotuig chilc7ren.
to ariyone who has an
N1�TION by Councilman Goods to re-appropriate $8,000 of CDBG funds
earmarked f or the Univer ' ' ssissippi lighteci sic�iage to the Locke House
restoration. '�� Cbtaici].man Fitzpatrick. Opon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Ma ee delcared the mation c�rried u�animously.
C�a stated staff would notify the County of this amendment to the
s appropriation of the QBG f�ds.
.�,,•� �, � • •:. • io • ��« � • •�� •• � �
r i� � v� o- i� •� •� � •� •�� •• w.�,► a�•
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated an Erivirorgaental Assessment
Worksheet for the Lake Pointe Corporate Center has been prepared and
clistributed to 14 reviewing agencies, as well as published in the D�B
Monitor. He stated the Gity has receivecl seven responses and none were
r�egative. He stated sosne o� these a�annents regarding soils, water run-off,
and the sanitary waste issue will be addressed during actual vonstruction.
Mr. Flora stated the �natter o� air quality does require improvenent of the
iritergections at Highway 65 arxl West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65 and
R.ive Creek Road. He stated, as far as wildlife habitat, this development
doesn't impact on Moore Lake.
Mr. Flora stated it is staff's re�mendation that, in accordance with. the
responses re�veived, there is no requi.resnent for an envirornnental impact' -
statenent to be pre�red.
Mr. Qureshi, City Mar�ager, stateci the Minnesota Follution Control Agency
would be issuing an indirect. sourc�e permit and would take into oonsideration
txaffic and air qua3.ity. He stated the City is aiware the intersection ryeeds
to be upgraded, hawever, the total cost of this improvement and the
participation of the differerzt agencies has not been establishecl. He skated
it is hoped that the Deg�rtment af Transportation will move on a timetable
the Ci.ty desires.
1�DTI�1 by Cot,�cilman Barnette to ac7opt Resolution No. 19-1986. Seconded by
(b�cilman Schr�eider. Upon a vaice vate, all vating aye, Mayor Nee declared
the mation carried uu�animously.
NLs. Lir�da Fisher, 1500 Northwestern Financial Uenter, stated the Ci ty staf f
has been very thorough in this grooess on the envirormental issues.
Mr. Eric Nesset stated getting the intersection improvement in 3987 is
critical to their developnent.
Ms. Fisher stated they- n�ed, the .ir�di.rect . s�urve permit � for �is �xoj ect and
will be submitting an application-i.n the next fau weelcs. She stated there
is a 30 day vosm�ent period _and, �as shawn in the ai.r guality analysis, the
-5-
i z
':��1�3:04
COiJNCIL MEEPING OF MARC�i 17 1986 ! �51.
:;;•: first building wi11 work with the existing intersection, .but further '
de�velopnent requires im�aveaent � the irter�ection. She stated Wooc��ridge
Properties would like to be irivolved in the City's meetings with the
Minnesota Deparhnent o�E Transp�rtation.
7.
1''�• S2ureshi. stated staff would work with Woodbridge to try ar�d expedibe this
�►Pr� P�o] ect through �e Depariment a� Transportation.
PRQTDC.T �162 -
1�1DTD�N by Gbt�►cilman Goodspeed to adopt Regolution No. 20-1986. nded by
Gacaicilman Schneider. Upon a voioe vote, all voking aye, Mayor c3ecl.ared
� the motion carried �ani.mously.
8. RF,90Li]TION ND. 21-1986 ORD A,PPRpVAL OF At�D 12DERI
AD I FOR B : WATEEt & EWER # 2 t
iKJTD�I by Cowzcilman Barnette to acbpt Reeo].ukion No. 1 1986. Seoonded by
Co�cilman Scluzeider. Op�n a voice vote, all vati aye, Mayor Nee cleclared
the motion c,arried unani.mously. �
9.
PR(�Tk7GT N0. ST 1986-1:
M�T�1 bY Cocmcilm�an Fitzpatrick to Resolurion No. 22-1986. Seoonded
by Cbtmcilman Goc�peed. Opon a vi ce vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
c�clared the motio¢� earried tmanim� ly.
10. RES LUTION . 23-1986 ORD ING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL�PLA A D
F7CIFICATI AI�ID - I RO
N0. ST 1986-1• _ -
NDT�(ki bY Councilman F'i trick to adopt Resblution No. 23 1986. Seoonded
bY Gouncilman Schneid . Opon � a voice vote, all voting aye,. Mayor- Nee
declared the mo�tion rrieci unanuaously. ,
11.: Li]TI . 24 86 ORDIItIIVG O�' RDERING :. --
ADVERTI B 1986-1-
NI)TD�+T by Co c,ilman Schneider to adopt Res�lukion No. 24-1986.; _ Seaonded by '
Coia�,Gil.man arnette. [Ipon a voioe vo�te, all� voting aye. MaYor Nee declared
the moti c�rried isianimously.
iz.
, ., . . . ,
�:. D�i by .��cilman Goodspecd to� adopt Resoiukion �No. 25-1986: Seoor�d�d by ..,
. . .
: . Cbulcilman Barnette. Upon'a voioe vote, :all voting aye, Mayor ,Nee _ declared `
the motion c�rried tusanimously. . . ,
-6-
,-
'� �13.05 �
RESOLU'TION NO. -1996
RESOLtY'ITON ADOPTYNG F1NDiNG5 OF FACT ESTA��,ISHING TT�AT
A NEW �NVIR,ONMENTAL AS3ESSML�T'VVORI�.SHEET YS N4T
REQUTRED FOR LAKE �OII�TTT? OFFTCE PARK, AND RELATED
TRYJNK HiCx�iVVAY 65/WEST MOORE LAKE DTLTVE/CENTR.AL
AVEN'LTE IN"I'ERS�',C7TON IMPRO�'EMENTS UN77EY2.
MINNE507'A ENVIRONIv�NTAL QUALY"T"Y BOARD
ENVTROATMII�ITAL REVIL�J PR.OGRAM AY.JLES
'tuHEREA5, in 1485, Waadbridge Properties, 7nc. ("Woodbridge") proposed a phased
development af 749,730 squ�re feet of office and commerciai uses to be �own as T..ake Pointe
Corporate Center ("Lake Painte'� on about 42 acres of land in the narthrn+'esrt quadrant of the
intersection of Trun.k Highwray 65 and Interstate 694 .("Site'� in the City o� Fridley, Minn�sota
("Cit�''�; arid
VtTI�1tEAS, Lake Pointe r�q�uired preparation of a mandatory en�vironmental ass�ssment
workshe�C ("EAW'� under Minnesata En'vironmenttai Qa�lity Board ("EQB"� En�viranmental
�teview Program rules beeause of its size, number oFparking spaces, and sanitaYy sewage
generation; and
1�HEREAS, the City wa.5 the responsible gar�ernmentai unit for preparation of'the Lake
Fointe mandatory EAW� under EQB rules; and
�VHEREAS, in Febr�y 19$6, Waadbridge and the City prepared a mandatory EAW for
Lake Painie (the "1986 Lake Pointe EAW '); and
'VVHEREAS, the City published notice of the availa.bility of the 1986 Lake Pointe EAW
for public review and distribv�#ed the E1�W �or comme�t in accordance with EQB rules; And
`UV��REAS, the 3Q-day period for revie�w an,d comrnent on tlie 1986 Lake Pointe EAW
ended on March 12, 1986; aad
WHEREAS, the City revievved written cvmments submiited to it during the 30�day
review periad and other infbrmation it asse�mbled regarding Lake Painte env'ironmental impacts;
and
�iTHEREAS, the City consid�red the type, extent a�d reversibilit� of environmental
effects a£the 1986 Lal�e Pointe project, the e�mulative pot�ntial effects of rela.ted or anticip�ted
fut�xre projects, the ��tent to which the environmental effects ofthe 1986 Lake Paiute project
were stYbject to mitig�.tian by ongoing p�xblic regulatory a�thority, and the extent to �vk�ic.h
environment�l effects of the 1986 Lake Pai�te proje�t could be anticipated and controlled as a
result of environmental studies undE�talcen by public agencies or the project propnser; and
13.06
Z d 5 l 161L09�� 'ON/�� � I l'ZS/9� � 11 96 ,�0 'b0 (IlHZ) AZ�Q t1�NI,�.�OH I�Ix��'I �'d���
WI-i&REAS, in March 1986, the City staff prepared propased findin�s of fact and a
record af decision as required by EQB rules; and
WH��AS, on March 17, 1986, the City Couacil adopted Resolution No. 19-1986, a
negative declaration finding that an environmantat impact statement was nat required for the
1986 I.ake Pointe project hecause the groject did not have the potential for signifi.cadt
environmental effects under state l�.�v; and
't1V1�REAS, on July 14, 1986, the Mianesota Pallution Control �enEy issued an
indirect source permit to Waodbridge and the City for the 19$6 I,ake Pointe projeet; and
WHE�AS, on August 12, 1986, the City rezoned the Site ta S�2 Redevelopment
District; atid
� WFiEREAS, in the Iate 1980s, some stree�t, ut�lity and draiaage irnprovements and a
perimeter berm aizd pl�ntings were constructed tn serve the l9$6 Lake Pointe project; and
WHEREAS, none of the proposed office �d commercial builciings has been canstcvcted
on the Site; and
WHEREAS, in �ece�mber 1992, the Fridley Housing and rtedevelapment Authority
i"�") P�ha�ed the Site from the ariginal deve]oper and initiated a mazketing campai�n to
atkract potential developers and users; and
�'T�EEREAS, in 1995, the HRA entered into a Conlxaet for Exclusive Nega�iatioas
("Contract'� vviih MEPC American Properties, Inc. ("Ni�PC'� to n�arket the Site and aitract high
quality off'ice and commercial developme�t; and
V�T!-�E�AS, the S-2 zoning d�strict and the Contra�t require City and HRA approval of a
master plan; and
'4�REAS, N1EPC has prepared and submitted to the City and the 1-1RA a Lake �'ainte
Master Plan, dated March 29, 1996 (the "1996 Lake Pointe Master Plan'�, for office and
commercial developme.nt vn the Site; and
WHEI�EAS, the 1996 proposed Lake Poi�e project is siaular bert not identical to the
1986 Lake Fdinte project for vt�luch the 1986 Lak� Pointe EA►w w�s prepared; aud
W�Y��AS, nev� �ov�rnmental approvals are �equired for the 1995 proposed �.ake Point�
proj ect; and '
WHEREAS, the City as responsible governmental unit under current EQB rules must
determine whether the 1946 proposed Lak� Poimte project imrolves a substantia] change in the
de�velopment tha.t may affect the patential for significant adverse envirovmental effects rtnder
state 1a�+7v and EQB rules; an,d
�
£ d� l l6I L09�� 'ON/5� � 1 l'ZS/L� � 1 l 96 ,G���i11HZJ 1�'I�Q i1�i^I��OH I�I}I��'I x"{0�±�
W�E7ZEAS, th� City �nd its constitltants compared the characteristics of the proposed
1996 T.alce Pointe project to the charaeteristics af the previousiy proposed 199G La�c� �'oinx�
project $nd evalr�ated changes ia existrng and planned sunounding land uses since the adopbon
of the Lake Fointe EAW negati�ve declaration findiag on Mazch 17, 1996; and
V►�i'EREAS, the City �nd its consul't,ants canducted new traffic, air quatity, naise and
wetland studies of the 1996 proposed Lake Pointe praject and related road.wa�' improvements and
�enerdlly �updated the envirvnmental anal�sis coatained in the 19$6 Lake Pointe EAW and
supgorting documents; and
WI IE�LEAS, the City has determined, based on the fojlavuing f ndings of fact aad the
Recard of Decision att�.Ched hereto as �xhibit A, that the 1996 proposed Lske Pointe project is
not a s�bsiantial change from the previo�sly proposed 19$6 T�al:e Pointe project under EQB
rules:
• The 1996 Y,ake Fointe Site is the same as the 1485 Lake Pointe Site.
Land us�s in the vici.nity of the Site have not changed dr�uraatically since greparatioa
o�'the 19$6 Lake �oint� EA�I. Some r�eighboring v'acant prop+�rties have be�n
developed si.ace 1986, primarily for office, tovv�nhome and eommercial uses. This
development pattern was generally anticipated in the 1986 Lake Painte EA�IY and
conforms veYth the City Comprehensive Plan. I+lo sensiiive insiitutionsl Xand uses
ha�ve be�n built since 198b in the vicinity of the Site. The two single-family homes
closest to the 't7Vest Ivloore Lalte Drive/Triu�lc Hi.ghw�ay 65 intersectian �ere purchased
by the �-�2A in 1994 and i995. This is consistent v�rith the 19$6 Lake 1'ointe indirect
source permit which required removal of the hame at 5741 West Moore Lake Drive
priar to constr�ction of Phese YY because of projected sir quality impacis at the
intersectian.
• The types oFland uses praposed for 1'he 1996 Lal:e Pointe proje�t are substantially
similar to the types of land uses prapos�d far the 1986 Lake Pointe project. �F�ach
project involves a predominani office component vcrith ancillary serviee coaunerciai
uses, such as hotel, restaurant and bank.
The total amount of btYilding sqtYare faotage (672,313 square fee�t) shawn on the 199b
Lake Pointe 1Vlastez Plan is abav�t 11°!0 less than the total amaunt oFbuildin� square
foatage (749,730 sqnare feet) proposed for the 1986 Lake Painte project. The 1996
project also requires const�vction of fewer parking spaces (2,$11) iban t�e number of
parldng spaces (2,925) required for the 1986 project.
. Both the 1996 and the 19$6 Lake Pointe pro}ects are ar �urere phased developments.
Environiuental analyses fc�r each project cansidered a Phase I develapment aad fi�1
dev�lopme�nt of the overall prajeet. The previovsl� proposed project's first p�A�
(1958 completion� included 130,000 sq�e feet af office and xesta�urant use; az fixil
development (year 20Q0 completion), the 1986 Lalce Pointe project would have
included 749,730 square feet, consistin� of 646,230 square feet of affice use, 90,QOQ
��
13.08
t� d� I I61 L09�C 'ON/�� �! 1'ZS/L5 � I l 96 ,b0 'b0 (I1HZ) A��Q IddN1�,�4H I�I}I��'I t'd0�.�
square feet af hatel use, �. 3,500 square foot canvea�ion �rea and a 10,000 square %ot
restaurant. The currently proposed 1996 Lako Pointe project's first phase (19�9
completion) assumes constructivn of up % 213,345 sq�are feet of o�ce and service
cammercial uses. At full de�velopment in 2008, the 1996 L�1ce Pointe M�st�r Plan
sho�nrs consh�uction of a total o�' S82,d00 square feet of office use and 90,313 square
feet of servicc commercial uses.
• Tha 1996 I,aka Pointe pzoject is less intense than the 1986 Lake Pointe project iu
teims of l�t coverage (7% vs. 1 U'�n) Pmd total number of buildings (seven vs. ten).
• The range of building heights proposed for the 1996 Lake Pointe project (one to eight
stories} is the same as the range arf building heights prapesed for the 198b Lake
Pointe praject (one to eight staries). �oih projects involved co�sfiructian of three-
level parlting ramps betvveen the o�ce and commerci�l t�ses and the residential aren
ta the north.
� Sereening, berming and building setbacks to the north residential area, and perimeter
plantings for the 1996 praposed L�ke �'ointe project are substantially similar to those
propased for the 1986 project. Bufferi.ng and landsc�ping described in the 198b T.alce
Pointe EAV�, which includetl a 40-foot plsnting ares, the right-of-way far
Bridger�vater �kive, a 20-foot setbacl� ta pazking ramps, a three to five foot lugh berm
and perimeter conifer, deciduoius and shrub plautings were installed during street and
utility constsuction in the 1980s_
The starm vvater management cvncept for the 194b proposed Lake Pointe project is
substantially similar to the storm �vater manage�ment concept faz the 1986 Lake Pointe
project. Both prnjeets invalved on-si�te ponds far rate control and water quality
treatment purposes. Five ponds anticipaied in the 1985 Lake Poiute EAW were
installed an th� Site in the late 1980s. The 1996 Lake Pointe project includss
canstruction of �ive additional on-site treatment pands coasistent �rith current
regulatary criteria.
The 1986 Lake Pointe EAVV cliscussed the need for geometric improveinents to the
existing 'VVest Maore L�lce brive/Tnuik �-iighr�vay 65 intersection ta accommadate fii1I
developme� of Lake Pointe and other planned development in the surronnding area.
The 1986 Lake Pointe PA�V' included a conceptual design for these intersection
improve.�nents. LTpd.ated t�ffic aaalyses of the curreatly gzoposed 19�6 Lake Painte
project idenxify the need for the same intersection improvemeut at'�Vest Moore Lake
Drive and Trunk Highway �5 as was identified in the 1986 Lake Pointe �A'Vt�. No
other major roadway improvements are req�ired to serve the c�t�reatly proposed
projeet.
Vv��EREAS, the City has determined, bas�ed on the followi.ng findings of fact and the
Record of Decisian attached hereto as Exhibit A, that the 1996 proposed Lake Fainte project, as
Campared to the previorxsly praposed 1986 Lake �'ointe project considered in the 1986 Lak,e
4.
� d� 1161 � �9�� 'ONi �� � 11 'ZS/8� � 1 l 96 ,ti0 �� (�1H�,) I�I�Q td�+I:��OH h IXHb 1 1't0?��
Painte EAW, does not have the poteatia] for significant adverse environmental effects under state
la+�v and 'EQB ru7es:
Tr . Th� 1996 propoaed Lake Pointe prvject pre-de�velopment roadway system is
similar to the 1986 Lake Pointe project pre-development road�vay system, although
se�veral rbadway improvements have occurred since preparation of tbe 1986 Y,ake
Painte EAW, incl�ding cans�cucladn of �.ake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive to
serve the Site in 198b-1987 �nd constr�xction of additional l�es of traffic in both
direciians an Y-694 from the Mississippi River east past the Site in 1989 amd 199Q_
+ As documented in Exlubit A Re�ard of Decision, the City's cansultant, Benshoaf &
Associates prepared an updated traffic analysis of the 199b pr�pos�d Lake Pointe
. praject ("1996 r,ake Pointe Traffic Analysis"). To alla�v for �ssible intensifica�ian
of the land uses shown an the 199b Lake Pointe Master �lan, the 1996 Lake Fainte
TraffiC Analysis and related air qualify auod noise studies prepared by ]]avid Braslau
Assaciates, Inc., ass�umed a Phase I development (1999) of 213,345 square fee�
(133,500 square feet office, 9,845 square feet restaurant, 6,Oq0 square feet bank,
4,500 square feet da.y-care, �nd a 130-room, 60,000 squ�re feet hotel) and a fu11
derrelo p me�rt (year 2008} af 729,3�5 square feet (649,500 square feet afiice, 9,845
square feet resta�ant, 6,U00 square faot banlc, 4,500 square foot day-caze, and a
130-raam, b0,U00 squa�re foot hatel). The 1996 �ake �oimte Traffic .Analysis
demonstrates that the � 996 project generates 20% less a.m. peak h�ur trips �nd 9%
less p.m_ peak howr irips than th� 1986 T�ake Poiate project, ass�Yming application of
current Institute of Tr�nsportation �ngineers trip generatian methodology ta ths 1996
project.
+ The directional distribution of trigs, traffic assignmerrt and acGess for the 199b
praposed L�lce Pointe project are substantially similar ta the directional distribution of
trips? tr�ff'ic assign.ment and access for the previousl� proposed 1986 Lake Pointe
project_
Exisri�g traffic conditions for the 1�96 Lake Pointe Traffic A.n�lysis were
dacumented by �affic counts in December 199� at the West Iv�aore Lake DrivelTrunk
�igh�vay bS, S�venth StreedLake Poiute Drive, aud 5eventh Streetl57th Avenne
North intersections, and in ]ate spring or early summer 1995 at the Trunk
Highway 47/57th Avenue intersection. 'fraffic �enerated by the recently appraved
Home Depot Store on Main Street wa.s accounted for by adding Home �7�pot trip
generation pr�dicted by Home Depot's traf�ic co�sultant to 1995 traffic counts-
Th�se 1995 cvunts wera factored. �p to 1999 base conditions in all cases.
•'�'he 1996 Lake Pointe Traffic Analysis capacity study demonstrases that r�vith one
exception, all affecied critical intersectians will operaxe at an acceptable level of
service (D ar better) during the p.m. peak howr at fu11 development of the currently
propos�d praject. The 1996 Lake Pointe Traffic Analysis and the 1486 L�ke Point.e
EAW demonstrate that pre-development traffic operations at the '4Vest Moore Lake
�
13.10
9 d� I 161L�9�£ 'Ol�i �� � 1 I'ZS/6� � I I 96 ,b0 'b0 (IlHZi 1�'IHQ t���OH �II?IH�'I }"{0��
Drive/Trunk Highway 65 intersection are or were near capacity, given tra�c volumes
a.�d geornetrics exis�ting in 1996 or 1986, respectively. The 1996 I.ake Pointe Traffic
Analysis and the 1986 Lake Pointe EAW demonstrate that fu11 development project
traffic plus fuh�re backgo�nd traffic cannot be accommodated for eithe�' de�'elopment
at aa acceptable level of service without �eametric improvemeIIls to the W�st Moore
Lake �iveJTnuik Hi�hway 65 intersection 7'he 1986 Y.ake Pointe EAW discussed a
conceptual design fdr necessary intersectYOn improveme�s; subject tv desigp
refi.nement, the s�me concepival design is necessary to accommadate the �u�entlY
proposed Lake Pointa praj�ct and traffic growth in the azea consistent with the City
Camprehensive PlHn. 7he 1996 Lake Poiate Tra�c Analysis identifies a poteutial
need to accel�e the time�tablc far construction of the Vl�'est Moore LAke Driv�/I'nink
Hi�hwa,y 6� intersection improvements to ensure accep�table traffiic operaiions for
�. maximum first phase develapment as showa on the 1996 L�lce Pointe 1vlsster Plan.
Traffie generated b�► the 1996 Lake Pointe project does nQt, however, require
oonstruction of roadway improvements that were not identified as pot�ntial miti�ation
measy�res in the 1986 Lake Pointe EAW.
. 8is uali�. At fu11 de�velopment of either the 1996 proposed �ake Painte proje�t ar
the previausly propased 1986 Lake Painte project, carbon monoxide levels are
projected to comply vc�ith applicable air t�uality standards. "This is t�rae for the 1996
propased project e'ven in the absence �f geometric road�cvay improvements to the West
Nlaore Lake Driverl'rtmk Highvvay 65 intersectian identified in ihe 199b I,alce Pointe
Traffic Ana]ysis as necessary to accomrnodaxe full development of Lake Pointe, gl�s
fittare background traffic voluimes, at level of serv�ice D or better.
"se. 1996 Lake Pointe t�rraffic noise effects are expected to b� substantially similaz
to those of the previausly proposed 19$6 project: iraffic generated by both projects
results in same relativ�ly small inczeases in backgound noise le�vels but neither
project caus�s a perceptible (greater than 3 decibels} new Vialation of applicabie s�ta�
noise standards. Background (pre-development) noise conditions hsve deteriorated
sdmewhat a�t some recegtors since preparatian of the 1986 Lake Pointe EA�V,
primarily beca.u�se of increased traffic on surrounding roadways. 1-%wever, the
residential receptor closest to the 'West Moore Lake Drive/'Trunk Highw�y 6S
intersection has been aequired b� the City since adoptioa of the neaa�ive deelatat[an
in March 1986. In addition, noisa modeling for the 1996 Lake Pointe Master Plan
p�rfarmed b� the City's noise consultant documents that canstruction of the currently
proposed Lake Pointe bu�il,dings and parldng ramps shields the residential area
irnmediaxely north af the Site from roadway noise. t�t full developme�, traffic noise
ievels �.t ten hdmes that ^�vould exceed state noise st�ndards without Lake Pointe
Would drap b81o� state sta�ards.
• SOlIs And oundvti►�r. Soi1 conditions on the Site �e or weze generall�r aceeptable
for the 1996 or 1986 Lak,e Pointe projects, r�spectively. In 1994 and 1495, the
HRA's consulta�nt, $.A. Liesch Associates, Tnc., eonducted a Phaso I environmental
assessment of the Site. The Phase I assessment suggesCed that above or beld'�v grounci
6.
Z d� l I61109�£ 'ON/�� � 11 'ZS/6� � I I 96 ;i'0 '�0 l3i11 �'I�Q IdeNI,��OH 1�1}I55'I y�0��
storage tanks ma� have been located an the Site at a bus g�ra�e or a motel l�cated in
the area betrx►een 1949 and 1957. A Phase II environmental assessment of a pater�tial
petroleum tauk release was conducted in 1995. B�sed on the low levels of
cantamination reparted, the Minnesata. Pollution Control Agsncy determined that it
will not require an additional investigatian or corrective action at ttris time for the
minor levels of petrvleum contamination identified in the T'hase II environme�al
�ssessment.
.`JVetlands. The 1986 �,ake Pointe EAW was prepared pr2or to adoption of the
Minnesota �Netlaad Canservation Act in 1991. It did aot ide»tify any weflands
regulated by the Minnesot� Depattment of Natural Aesources or the United States
Ariny Corgs af Engineers on the Site. Construction Qf �aometric imp�avements at the
W est Maora Lake DrivelTrunk High�vay 65 �tersection ider�ified in the 1986 Lake
�'ainte EAW as a traffic mitigation measure required minor encroachment in't7+1es�
Moore Lake, a state-protected wetland north oi the 5ite. In.19$7, tixe Minaesot�,
Departrnent of Natatal R.esdtYrces issued a protected waters permit ta the City
autharizing fi11inB of about Q.�4 acre of W est Moare Lake for #he intersection
improvements.
The City's 'uvetland consultant, Peterson Environmental Cansulting, Inc., reviewed tlie
Site in tl�e �eld on Oetaber 3, 1995, to detern�ine if it inclu@ed �ny jurisdictional
wet�ands und�r current state and federal. law. Five stormwater tresimentt ponds are
Curtently located on the Sit�. No ather wetl�nds or water bodies �vere observed. Fc��xr
af the five storm�nvater pands were constructed on uplands and 2ire exempt from the
Minnesota WetlBnd Conservation Act and t�pically are not regulated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Fngineers tYnder Se�tion 404 ofthe Clean Waier Aet. The fifth pond
adjacent to V�est Moore Y,ake Drive appears to hav'e been cons�ucted in wet3anti. The
pond can continue ta be used for storm�vater treatmeat withaut any additian�I �retland
permits.
Peterson Environmenta] Consulting also revie�ed the cancep2ual design for the 'a7est
Maore Lake Drive/Tnmk Highway 6S improvements. PEC identified a maximYUn of
0, S� acre of fill within Moote Lake for the intersection impro�vem�nts, depending bn
the ma�cirnum slopes from the edge of the praposed Faadway shoulder. This �vetland
impact is currently regulated try the 1Viinnesata T7epartment of Natural Re�urces and
the U.S. Army Corps vf Engineers. Further analysis af th� feasibilixy of t�voidi.ng or
mi,,;m;�ing raredand ixnpacts �vill be conducted as part of the iaterseetion
impravements design phe�se. Comp�nsatory �vetland miti�afiion �ill also be provided.
.�/e�e ++�n an Wildlife.Im�cts. Neither the 1996 proposed Lake Pointe project nor
the previau�sly proposed 198b project affects state eadangered, threatened or special
concern animal.or pl�mi species. 5ignificant graclin� for street and utility constnsctioii
occ�rred on the Site in the late 1980s. The Site cur=ently pra^vides margusal wildlife
habifia# iypical of undev�loped urban �ress. These undev�loped areas mainly provide
habitat for small mammals and songbuds that are r,vmmon ta suburban areag. The
7.
13.12
8 d� l l� l L��9�� '��fi �5 � 1 l'ZS/00 � Z I 96 ,V0 'v0 (IIH,I) 1�'I�Q i1�"i�,�OH N Ix�d'I �"��� �
indi�vidual blac+l�s of habitat �re too sinall to support larger mammals and receive too
much human u�se to support easily distuzbed species, �eca�se of the small amaunt
and mazgin�l. quality of wildlife habitat an the Site, the 1996 proposed Lake Poi.nte
project is expected to have a negligible impact an wildlife habita�
Peterson Environmental Consuiting preiiminar�ly analyxed the vegetarion dn.d wi.ldlife
impacts of the wetland encraachment required for the related Wes�t Moore �.ake
DriveJTrunk Highway 65 int��rsection improvements. Three habitat types may bt
af�ected, including palustrine open r�vater (0.54 acre), emergent fringe dominaied by
cattails (0.32 a�cre) and maaicured turf with scattered trees and lnvsh (U.07 acre)-
Although the open water habitat is utilized by migratin� waterfowl, wading birds,
reptiles and some game fish, the small area af impact is not expe.cted to siguii'icantl�
� affeCt these species. Frin�e areas are utilized by redwiug blackbirds, common
yellavvthroats, �ellow vcrarblers, robias, m�skrats, deer mice or meadovv volas.
Althou� these species will be directly impa,cted by loss of habitat, filling some of the
open �uvater areas may provide snitable substrate far the grawth of emergent
vegetatian along the edge of the road and ultimately provide suitable h�bitgt. Lar,vns
and manicured tutf provide rabins and other spe�eies foraging substrate but provide
little habitat for nestin.g and shelter. impacts to re�ional wildIife populations are
expected to be nagligible because of the ab�undance of this type of habitat in the
metropolitan srea
H lo . Five stormvr+'ater ponds have been consiru�cted on the Site consistent with
the stormwater management conceptual plan desctibed in ihe 1985 Lake Painte EA�N.
The percentage of the Site proposed to be convarted to imperviou5 s�rface for the
1996 Lake Pointe project is substantially similar to the percentage of the Site
proposed to be converted to impervious surface far tl�e pre'via�usly proposed 1986
pzojeet past-development nunoff �volumes fzam the 1996 propased Lake Painte
project far the 10-yeaz and 1Qa-�►ear starm events are projected to be comparable to
post�development runoff volumes from the pr�riously pzoposed 1986 project for ihe
s�me events. �ive additional stormwater ponds are proposed far the 19�6 project to
provide past-develapment peak runoff raxes Iess than or eq�al io pre-develapment
peak runoff rates. These ponds are also being designed to m�xim i�E w�,t�r quality
breatment and will be eq�uipped vvith devices to trap floatable pallutants Bnd debris.
ater al itv. 1996 Lake PQinte projsct water quality effects are expected ta be
substantially similaz to those of the previously proposed 19$6 T.ake Pointe project.
Stormwater runoff froJn either development would likely include great,�r
cancentr�.tions of nutrients and other pollutants, suc�h as sediment and floatable ail
and debris, than stormr�vater runoff from the Site in its undeveloped condition. This is ,
an wzavaidable impa�t of eonversian of vacant property to urban land use consistent
with regional and local land use plans and palicies. Tn response to a coupment vn the
19$6 Lake Pointe EAW, the original de�velop�r's consultant analyzed Lake Pointe's
potential phosphorus Ioading impacts an 'West Moore Lake. Tlus study documented `
8.
13.13
6 d� I 16 l L��9�� 'OMi �� � 1 l'ZS/10 � G 1 96 ,t�0 'b0 (�lHl) 1�'I�Q t��NI��OH NI?Iy�'I }YO�i�
na not�ceable change in �toph2c le�vels in W'est Moare Lake related to the previously
prppased 1986 Lake �ainte project.
Water quality effects of the 1996 propased T,ake Pointe project v�rill be mitigated by a
pennanent stormwater ponding system that will include fi�ve mor� ponds thmi the
storm�water ponding system proposed in. the 1�86 Lake Pointe �AW. The nevvly
p�Qposed �uvaYer quali�y treatment ponds a�nd will pretreat the Portian of proJect runvff
that drains to �Vest Moore Lake and will pro�ide an e�nanc�d level of water qnalii�►
treatrne�nt ag compared to the previvusly propased stormwater pUnds. These ponds
will generally meet Natianal LJrban R�noff Program ("NL�''� criteria- D�ng
conshvction, erasion contnrol dexrices will be employed to minimiize soil �rosian and
sedimentatioa. Disturbed areas will be revegetated cansistent �vvith City and
watershed di�trict criteria
. Shorel�nd and Flood Plain. A portion of the northeast carner of the Site lies within
the shoreland of West Moore Lake as defined by state 1a.w. The City has not yet
adopted a state-apprvved shoreland zonin� district. Howevar, the DNR Area
Hydrologist recent�y approved the City's eonceptu�al requ�st for flexibility from state-
�xr'tde st�uZdards for lots v�tside of t]le first tier of lats directly ssdjacent to West Maare
Lake and thre� other shc�reland basins. The 1996 praposecl Lake Pai.nte project is
e�cpected io confarm to shnreland manage�ment crit�ria ultunately agreed to by the
Cii� and the Minnesota Department of Natural kesotYrces.
The Site is not located within a flood plain loning district and is aot vvithin A
designated 100-year floodplai�a as shovvn an the Federa.l Emerg�ncy Mana�gement
Association Map dated March 2, 1981.. �Iov�vevez, geometric improvements to the
West Moare Lake DrivelTrunk T�ighv�ray 6S intersectiaa rscommended as mitigation
measures for botli t�e currently proposed 1996 Lalc� Pointe project and fi.�e previously
proposed 1986 project will likely require a m.inor reduction in 100-y�ar storage
volrxme and 100-yeffi high water elevatian far'West Moore Lake Drive. These minor
impacts were conceptuall� approved by ihe Minnesata I7epartment of Natural
Resourees and Rice Creek Wa�tershed District in 1957 for the pre�iously proposed
project_ Fermit approvals will be updated. as necessary, consistent wzth final design af
the in.tersectian improvements and current regulatory criteria.
.��,ni Se�uv d�Vater. Sanitary sewar and wateI �uvere installed in 19gb and 1987
to serve the Site. 'rhe utilities are appropriately sized to a�ceommodate the 1996
proposed Lake �`ointe praject. I'his utility const�uctian eliminated th� conshai�nt in
the trunk sewer line under 57th Plaee Northeast thax �►as identified in the 1986 Lake
Pointe EA'W_
• �»y�.� aad'EI" oric R source�. In �ebruary 1986, the Minncsota Historical Soeiety'
determined that the Lake Pointe prQject azea does not include aay kno�cvn sites of
°� histbrie, archit�criffal, cultural, arehealogical, ar engineering sign�ficance• 'T'here are
no knowa sites in the project area which are on the National �tegister or eligible for
9.
13.74
O l d� l 16l Z�9�� 'ON/�� � I 1'ZS/I O� Z l 96 ,�0 '�0 �IIHS) 1�'I�Q hl��,�,�OH NI}I��'I �`�0��
inclusion on the National Register. 'Iherefare, neitlner the 1996 proposed Lake Poinie
project nor 1he previou�sly praposed 1986 project affects signiffcant ct�ltural or histonc
resources.
NO'VV', 'THEYtEFOR� BE IT �tESOLV'ED, that the City of Fridley as responsible
governmental unit under the Minn�esota Environmentat Qu�ality Board �nviranmental Re�iew
�'rogram rules finds t1�at a new �nvimnmental assessruent worksheet is not required far L,ake
pointe Office Park and reiated West Moore Lake DriveJTrimk XIighway 65/Centra,t A�venue
intersection improveme�nts.
PASSED AND ADOPTED B'Y THE CYTX COIJNG"IL OF T�IE CI1"� 4F FRT�LEY
THIS ]7AY OF ,1996.
r
ATTEST.
V�IY.LIAM A CHAMFA, CYTY CLERK
01996?2-al
VVII.LIAM �. NEE - MAYCIK
10.
13.15
1! d 5! l6 l t095� 'ON/5� � l l'ZS/�0 � Z I 96 ,tr0 '�0 (i1H1.1 �I'I�Q N�Y+I,��OH HI��V`I y'�0��
RECORD OF DECISION Exhibit A
LAKE POiNTE OFFICE PARK
SITE HISTORY
On December 20, i985, the Fridley HRA entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment with Lake Pointe Investment Company. The Contract permitted the
construction of a multi-phase campus development consisting of 9 buildings including
six office buildings, three commercial buildings, and low profile parking ramps with a
total development square footage of approximately 749,730 square feet.
In 1986, the City approved the requisite rezoning, plat and special use permit
applications to permit the developer to begin construction. The property was officially
rezoned to S-2, Redevelopment District on August 12, 1986. The City also approved
construction of the street, installation of utilities, and installation of landscaping and
irrigation. The property was also graded according to an approved storm water
management plan and the building pads were prepared in accordance with the
approved Master Plan for the site.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the developer and was
approved by the City on March 17, 1986. An Indirect Source Permit was obtained
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on July 14, 1986. Traffic, air
and noise analyses were prepared for these documents and the required state,
regional, and local agencies provided comments on these documents.
The MPCA Indirect Source Permit expired because the development did not proceed.
A new Indirect Source perrnit will be necessary because the site will contain 2,811
parking spaces and is iocated at a high traffic volume interchanges.
In conjunction with the planning for the redevelopment of the property, the City
retained SEH, Short Elliiot, Hendrickson to prepare a schematic of the proposed
improvements to the Highway 65/West Moore Lake Drive/Central Avenue intersection.
The developer's traffic consultant had compteted a traffic analysis which indicated the
need to change the geometrics of the intersection in order to accommodate the traffic
from the development and the increase in the traf�c for the genera! area. When it
became apparent that development would not occur on the property, authorization to
proceed with the intersection improvements was delayed.
Development on the property did not occur due to many factors. During the mid to
tate 1980's, the Twin City metropoiitan area experienced a significant amount of
growth in all construction sectors. Class A office space boomed in Minneapolis and
St. Paul as well as in some suburbs, particularly in the southwest part of the region.
Further complicating development efforts were changes in federal tax laws and in
financia! institutions lending prac#ices.
73.76
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 2
Although presented with proposals to develop the site as a commercial power center
or one story oifice warehouse complex, the City Councii and HRA decided to reiain
the origir�al vision of the property as a corporate office campus. The HRA purChased
the property from the developer in December 1992, and initiated a marketing
campaign to attract potential developers and users.
In 1995,,the HRA entered into a Contract for Exciusive Negotiations with MEPC
American Properties inc. to market the site and to attract oifice and cammer�cial
development.
The S-2 zoning district requirements and the recently ex�uted Contract with MEPC
requires approval of a Master Plan by the City and the HRA. MEPC has prepared the
plan and has submitted it for review.
EXISTING CONDITIONS; WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 1986 REVIEW?
Streeis
Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive were constnacted in 1986 - 1987 to senre the
property. Although the right of ways have not been platted, ��0 foot right of way is
proposed with 36 foot wide streets around the central part of the site. The street and
right of way are larger at the intersection of Lake Pointe Drive with existing West
Moore Lake Drive. The streets are lined with cancrete curb and gutter.
I-694 was improved in 1989 and 1990 to provide additional lanes of traffic in both
directions from the Mississippi River east past the Lake Pointe site.
No physical changes have occurred to the T.H. 65 intersection, however, increased
traific, especially at the Central Avenue leg of the intersection has warranted
additional a�alysis.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer facilities were installed in 1986 and 1987. The
utilities are appropriately sized to senre the development Storm ponds were created
to provide adequate treatment of runoff from the deveiopment. There have been no -�
significant changes to the utility system which may affect the site.
Soils
Significar�t grading occurred on the property during street and utility construction.
13.17
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 3
Subterranean Engineering prepared soil reports documenting the soil conditions on
the property. Buiiding pad sites were prepared according to the Master Plan
approved by the City.
In 1994, the HRA commissioned Bruce A. Leisch and Associates to complete a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment (copy dated December 7, 1994 available from the
Community Development Department). It was determined that an area of the site now
occupied by the ramps to the interstate was once the location for bus garage and
motel. After a thorough review of historical aerials and files, there is no evidence of
hazardous waste dumping, mining, or dumping.
The MPCA file search revealed identification of a leak site at the Uno Ven automotive
station at 5695 Central Avenue, northwest of the property. Two soil borings were
advanced in the Lake Pointe property; one boring was advanced in the area where it
is thought the garage once existed. Low levels of impacted materials were found at
the boring where the garage once existed, but because the amounts are very small,
the MPCA will not require corrective action. It does not appear that theJeak site at
the Uno Ven property is affecting the Lake Pointe property.
The MPCA issued a letter dated May 4, 1995 which stated that MPCA will not require
any additional corrective action on the site.
Buffer Strip and Landscaping
Also installed during street and utility construction were boulevard trees around the
perimeter of the site and plantings in the 40 foot buffer strip along the residential area
to the north. Irrigation systems were also installed to maintain the vegetation.
As part of the rezoning application, a 140 foot strip of land was ieft as R-1, One
Family Dwelling to provide a buffer area between the single family homes to the north
and the bui{dings on the property. A 40 foot planting area was reserved within the
140 foot strip along the neighborhood boundary. The 60 foot right of way for
Bridgewater Drive is atso within the 140 foot strip feaving a remaining 40 foot area on
the office portion of the property. A special use permit was approved in 1986 to
permit construction of the parking lots and decks to encroach about 20 feet within the
140 foot strip. The parking areas were 20 feet from the Bridgewater Drive right of way
which is a typical setback for office parking lots.
A combination of conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs were planted in the 40 foot
strip abutting the single family homes. A berm was also provided in this area to
provide additional height for the landscaping.
13.18
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 4
The original plan anticipated construction of a three to a five foot berm with additional
vegetation on it on the south side of the Bridgewater right of way to screen the
activity of the parking areas.
The MEPC proposal is similar. The parking decks appear to be 10 feet _within the 140
toot strip but may be able to be shifted to the south to avoid the strip altogether. The
preliminary grading and landscaping plan also proposes additional berming along the
decks and additional conifers and shrubs are also proposed.
There is no significant change or increase in intensity for this area.
ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONlNG
North
Single family residences are located north of the property. The zoning is R-1, One
Famify Dwelling.
No significant changes in land use or zoning have occurred in this area since
consideration of the original request.
The two single family homes located nearest to the West Moore Lake Drive
intersection were purchased by the HRA in 1994 and 1995. The homes were
acquired for two reasons. First, the proposed realignment of Lake Pointe/West Moore
Lake Drive would necessitate the removal of the most easteriy home (5701 West
Moore Lake Drive) and the second home (570� would be very close to the realigned
roadway. Second, the original Indirect Source Permit required the removal of 5701
West Moore Lake Drive prior to construction of Phase 2 of the origi�al development
because of air quality impacts at the intersection.
South
Located immediately to the south of the property is I-694. To the south of the
interstate and to the east of 7th Street are single family homes zoned R-1.
Commercial uses are located in the immediate vicinity of the southwest comer of 1-
694 and Highway 65. Target, United Stores, Embers and other retail uses are zoned
G3, General Shopping District.
No changes in land use or zoning have occurred in this area.
13.19
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 5
East
Across Highway 65 to the east of the site is a mixture of residential and commerciat
uses and zoning. Immediately abutting the northeast comer of the Interstate is a gas
station, apartment buildings, owner occupied townhomes, single family homes, and
office uses. The area is zoned G1, Local Business; R-3, General Multiple Family; CR-
1, General Office; and R-1, One Family Dwelling.
New development since original consideration of the site includes a three story,
30,000 square foot office building and 38 townhome units.
The R-1 area is separated from Highway 65 by the G1 and R-3 zoning.
Wes#
Two multiple family zoning districts are located immediately west of the property
separated by the 7th Street right of way. Duplexes and small apartment buildings are
located on the west side of 7th Street. R-3, General Multiple Family and R-2, Two
Family Dwelling District zoning extends to the west to University Avenue south of 57th
Avenue.
Several commercial uses are located at the 57th Avenue and University Avenue
intersection. Rapid Oit, Super America and Motor Valet are located on the east side
of the intersection. Holiday Plus , Hardees, Burger King, Tires Inc, and non-
conforming residential uses are located on the west side of the intersection.
In 1995, a rezoning from M-2, Heavy Industrial and C-2, Commercial to G3, General
Shopping Center District was approved for the construction of a 130,000 square foot
commercial building to be occupied by Home Depot and PetSmart.
PROPOSED PROJECT; MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES
Project Characteristics
The proposed master plan prepared by MEPC dated March 29, 1996 mai�tains the
City's vision for the property as a corporate office park with supporting commercial
uses. As i� the original proposal, multi level parking facilities are proposed befinreen
the neighbofiood and office buildings. While the general land use pattem and vision
of the property remains the same, there are differences between the original plan and
MEPCs proposal. In general, the MEPC plan is less intensive.
13.20
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 6
Density/Bullding Square Footage
One of the differences between the MEPC proposal and the original proposal is size.
The amount of total constn�ction proposed by MEPC is 672,313 square feet as
compared to the original 749,730 square feet; a difference of 77,317 square feet.
Seven buiidings are proposed as compared to the original 9. Four office buildings
totalling 582,000 square feet are proposed along Lake Pointe Drive. Two three level
parking decks separate the buildings from the buffer strip and the neighborhood to
the north.
The commercial uses include three buildings totalling 90,313 square feet. A 9,845
square foot restaurant, 130 room hotel, and a 20,000 square foot bank/office building
is proposed.
Development Staging
The property is proposed to be developed over an 8 to 12 y�r time frame. Phase
one construction may include construction of the westem most office building
(124,000 square feet) plus some or all of the commercial uses (90,313 square feet).
Construction is anticipated to begin in the fall of 1996 or Spring of 1997. All of the
phase 1 uses could be completed by 1999. Each offlce building will probably be
constructed during an eighteen month time frame depending on market demand. It
is anticipated that the devetopment will be completed by 2007 or 2008.
Height and Lot Coverage
The four office buildings vary in building height from five stories to eight stories.
From west to east the buildings increase in height with two five story buildings, a six
story building, and an eight story buitding. Uniike the original plan, the buiidings are
aligned in a north/south f�shion as opposed to east/west. The proposed hotel is 4
stories tall, the restaurant will be one story, and the bank/office building will be two
stories.
These heights are the same as or smaller than the building heights ultimately
approved for the original plan. Two eight story buildings were originally proposed in
the center of the deveiopment flanked by one six story, one four story, and two three
story buildings. The hotel was proposed at six stories.
The floor area ratio for the MEPC proposal is also less intensive than the originally
approved plan. The total "footprint� of the seven buildings equals 132,160 square feet
13.21
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 7
as compared to the originally approved 155,922 square feet. The total lot coverage is
7% as compared with 10°!o from the previous proposal. �
UPDATED TRAFFIC, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE ANALYSIS
Traffic
fn order to assess the impact of the MEPC proposal, the HRA hired Benshoof and
Associates to update the original 1986 traffic study (copy dated April 3� 1996 availab{e
from Community Developme�t Department). As part of the update process, Benshoof
was asked to incorporate recent information from current traific studies on the Home
Depot store to the west of the site, as well as conducting new tum movement traffic
counts at the Highway 65 intersection and other affected intersectiona Traffic
projections were then developed using existing data plus a growth rate of 1°lo per
year plus the proposed trip generation rates (as determined by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition) for the proposed development.
In order to analyze a worst case scenario and to provide flexibility for possible
additional development, a higher total development square footage beyond the MEPC
total was used (729,345 square feet versus 672,313 proposed by MEPC). The
additionaf square footage was assumed to be office space.
The 1986 traffic analysis identified three roadway improvemerrt projects which were to
occur by 1988 and which would improve traffic conditions in the area: 1) widening of
I-694 to provide three lanes in each direction; 2) construction of the T.H. 610 bridge
crossing over the Mississippi River, and 3) installation of the frontage road between
7th Street and 57th Avenue (past the Super America and Motor Valet sites). All of
these have been constructed.
In 1986, 2,925 parking spaces were proposed. The current plan proposes 2,811
parking spaces. Because of the number of spaces and the site's location at a major
interchange, the MPCA requires an Indirect Source Permit to evaluate the air quality
from the traffic generated from the development. The traffic projections therefore
have to be prepared prior to completing the sir quality analysis (see section below).
The anticipated amount of P.M. peak hour trips at full devetopment in 2008 is 1,207
trips. In the 1986 study, 1,329 trips were arrticipated at the P.M. peak hour in the year
2000 with full development. Since 1986, the methods of calculating traific impacts
and computer modelling has changed to provide more accurate estimates. The trip
generation rates are also continually updated by the lnstitute of Traific Engineers.
13.22
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 8
The trip distr�bution is similar to the originally analyzed plan. About 59% of the trips
will enter/leave the site at the Highway 65 intersection. The remaining 41 % will
enter/leave the site from the west.
The updated traffic analysis makes similar findings for the necessity of improving the
intersection at Highway 65 as did the original analysis. The intersection currently
operates at level of service D. If the improvements are not made, the intersection will
operate at level of service F in 1999 (potential year of completion of phase 1) and in
2008 at full development.
A preliminary concept plan of the improvements was developed in 1986 and was
reviewed on a preliminary basis with appropr�ate agencies. The updated analysis has
con�rmed that the original concept plan for improvements should be used as the
basis ta improve the intersection. The traffic consultant also suggests working with
MnDOT to modify the exit ramp from westbound I-694 to northbound T.H. 65 to
provide traffic signal control at the intersection of the ramp and northbound T.H. 65.
This modification is to safely accommodate motorists travelling from the east on I-694
to the west on West Moore Lake Drive. The City has made application for and
received federal funding to offset the cost of the irrtersection improvement. City staff
is currently developing a timetabie for preparing the detailed plans and construction
of the intersection for City Council and HRA approval in the near future.
Once the improvements are made, the traffic analysis shows that the intersection will
operate at level of service D at full development. Depending on when the
improvements are made in the late 1990's, traffic operations will improve prior to full
deve(opment.
The updated analysis also shows that other intersections serving the property will
operate at acceptable levels of service. The 57th Avenue and University Avenue
intersection will operate at level of service D in 2008 if appropriate signal
modifications are made to provide east and west approach left tum arrows and a right
tum arrow for the west approach.
The 7th Street a�d Lake Pointe Drive intersection will operate at level of service A,
except the northbound and westbound movements will operate at B and C
respectively. The 57th Avenue and 7th Street intersections (just to the northwest of
the site) will generally operate at level of service A, with some movements at B and C
in the year 2008. Traffic will increase in this area as a result of the development, but
both 7th Street and 57th Avenue are designed to handle volumes in excess of what is
being projected.
13.23
.,,e!i. . .>....,_ . < . , �.. . .�. . . ,. . . ,�, . . . .;,d , � . ,,.. � , y2>u.>�f<>�, . � ..... ... . . . .. . . �. . . . , .,. ., ... . . . ,.. ,. ., , „>f.�sh< . , , , , .. . . . . . . .> �� < < . .s2i2 � .2.,. ,.._ , . .�_.., �,�i
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe OHice Park
Page 9
Air Quality
Existing air quality tests for carbon monoxide (CO) levels was completed at the park
site just south of the Fridley High Schooi. The baseline data in the 1986 EAW was
outdated and MPCA required new testing.
Projections of carbon monoxide concerrtrations were then developed for 15 receptor -
sites around the development at phase 1 comp{etion in 1999 and in 2008 with fuN
development. Assumptions were made about the vehicie speed and wind
direction/speed. Also incorporated into the analysis was the traffic projections and
signal cycle timing assumptions at affected intersections. The consultant used a
MPCA approved computer projection model. The analysis revealed that there were
no violations of one hour or eight hour concentration thresholds in 1999 or 2008 at
any of the receptor sites. It was also assumed that the interse�tion improvements
would NOT be constructed; again, a worst case approach.
The MPCA standard is 30 parts per million for a one hour conc�tion and 9 parts
per million for an eight hour concentration. The one hour CO levels around the site
ranged from 2.1 ppm across 7th Street at a duplex to 7.9 at the Super America at
57th Avenue and University Avenue. The eight hour levels around the site ranged
from 1.2 ppm at homes on 57th Avenue to 5.5 at the same Super America.
Comparing the current analysis with the 1986 analysis shows, in general, lower CO
concentrations. Since 1986, significant changes have been made to the lead content
of gasoline, and the State has initiated a vehicle emissions testing program. Further,
the computer models for air quality testing have significantly improved. -__
Noise
Noise monitoring and projections were developed for the P.M. peak hour. A
computer model approved by the MPCA was used to project noise levels at the L10
and L50 levels.
The projected noise from the traffic of the proposed development is slight and will not
cause perceptible effects (greater than 3 dBa of the applicable State requirements).
Both the 1986 and the currerrt anatysis shows that existing noise ievels at various
sites around the development experience a high level of noise from I-694 and
Highway 65. In some instances, existi�g noise levels exceed State standards.
The noise levels at the single family homes to the north of the developmerrt along
57th Avenue will decrease due to the construction of the buildings and parking decks.
13.24
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 10
This overail decrease wiil occur because the effect of the buiidings and parldng decks
in blocking noise from 1-694 wilt more �an offset the limited noise increase ��aused by -
vehicles traveling to and from the new development.
NATURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Wetlands
Ron Peterson from Peterson Environmental Consuiting Inc. toured the site on October
3, 1995 (c�py available from the Communrty Development Departmerrt), reviewed the
U.S. Fish and �Idlife National Wetland inverrtory map, and the SCS County Soil
Suroey for Anoka County. � Four of the five existing wertlands were constructed on
uplands and are not considered jurisdictional wetlands. A Wetland Conservation Act
replacement plan or an Army Corps Section 404 permit is r�ot required. The fifth
pond adjacent to West Moore Lake Drive appears to have be� construc#ed in a
wetland which had existed on the site previously. The pond can continue to be used
for stormwater treatment without any additional wetland permits.
Peterson Environmerrtal Consulting Inc. also reviewed a schematic of the Highway 65
improvement plans (letter dated March 8, 1996 available in Community Development
Department). !n order to accommodate a small expansion for an additional -
southbound right tum lane on Highway 65, about .86 acres of fill may be necessary
within Moore Lake. In 1987, the City received a permit from DNR to complete this
activity. According to the c;onsultant's analysis, a permit from DNR will again be
required as wel! as an Army Corps permit
Wetland mitigation at a one to one ratio may be required by these agencies. The City
is currently researching eligible sites and will comply with the requirements of the
state agencies.
Although new permits may be required, the nature of the fill activity is the same
activity originally contemplated in the originally plan.
Storm Water Managemerrt
During consideration of the originat plan, it was determined that about 18.7 acres of
the site drains west irrto the Six Cities Watershed District (SCWD) and about 23.8
acres drains east irrto the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The original pfan
proposed constnaction of five ponds and associated storm sewer pipes.to temporarily
store water after rairafall events and also to improve water quaiity by providing -
sediment basins.
�13.25
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 11
Five additionai ponds are proposed in the MEPC proposal. One of the new ponds
located at West Moore Lake Drive will be designed to meet recentty adopted water
quality treatment standards. Two of the ponds witl be additional detention facilities,
and two ponds are proposed to provide water amenities in between two of the four
o�ce buildings. Appropriate permits from SCWD and RCWD must be obtained prior
to plat approval. The legal boundary of the RCWD is located at West Moore Lake
Drive, even though part of the site drains into the west basin of Moore Lake.
In comparison to the original land use as a drive-in theater, the proposed
development will increase the amount of impervious surface and increase the number
of ponds for settlement of pollutants and sediments. In addition, the rate of runoff will
be siower and will be controlled according to the standards by the watershed
management organizations.
Shoreland Regulations
The City of Fridley has not adopted a state-approved shoreland ordinance, but is in
the process of preparing one in accordance with the DNR model ordinance. A
shoreland is defined by State Statute to be all land within 1,000 feet of the normal
high water mark of a protected water body. Moore Lake is designated as a
Recreational Development Lake by DNR.
Because the City is almost fully developed, imposi�g the state shoreland rules on
properties within 1,000 feet would be onerous. The City is requesting the DNR to
permit the City to adopt an ordi�ance which only pertains to the first tier of lots
surrounding the affected water bodies. In this case, the Lake Pointe site would not
be affected.
Despite the City's proposa{, the site is to be served by sanitary sewer and the area
immediately abutting Moore Lake will be preserved or enhanced with additional
vegetation. The storm water management plan wifl also provide adequate treatment
of the runoff and at controlfed rates.
Flood Pfain Regulations
The site is not located within a 100 year flood plain as shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Association map dated March 2, 1981.
Utilities
The site is senred by an 8 inch sewer line which is located in Lake Pointe Drive about
13.26
Record of Decision
Lake Pointe Office Park
Page 12
640 feet south of West Moore Lake Drive and extends to another 8 inch line in 7th
Street. The commerciaf lot at the West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65 - -
intersection is served by the 10 inch main in West Moore Lalce Drive. Pe�k flow were
calculated for ful! development during consideration of the originai plan. Because the
MEPC proposal is smaller, there will be no additional impacts the sanitary sewer
system.
The site `is served by a looped system of S inch and 10 inch water mains. Hydrants
have also been installed around Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. The size
and nature of the water system was based on the original development proposai;
there wil( be no additional impacts to the water system based on the MEPC proposal.
Soils
An extensive amount of earthwork was completed as part of the street, utility, and site
grading project in 1986 and 1987. In general, peat and organic soils were removed
and replaced with appropriate materials when necessary. There were 13 areas
around ihe site where peat was removed. Building pads were prepared in
accordance with the original plan. MEPC will be responsible for completing additional
soil strength testing or adjustment if the building pads need to be changed to match
the MEPC proposaL _
WILDUFE HABITAT
There will be no adverse affects to any endangered species as a r+esult of the
proposed development. The original EAW determined that a small amount of
marginal wildlife habitat typical of a suburban setting existed on the site. Impacts to
the wildlife would be �egligible.
13.27
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The variance request is in two parts:
1. To reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet (existing condition).
2. To increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet.
If approved, the request would bring into compliance an existing single family dwelling and a newly
constructed deck.
HARDSHIP:
"Deck/screen porch built too close to property line."
SLrNIlVIARY OF ISSITES:
W'hile the deck was constructed without a permit and was completed at the time of the application, the
request was analyzed as if no construction had occurred.
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires a rear yazd setback of not Iess than 25%
of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet pernutted or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public Purpose s�ved by this requiremer►t is to provide rear yazd space to be used for geen areas which
enhance the neighborhood.
The single family dwelling was constructed in 1979 prior to the petitioner becoming owner of the
property. The builder of the dwelling did not submit the verifying survey as required by the building
pernut. T'he variance raquest to reduce the rear yard setback will bring the dwelling into compliance and
is within previously ganted variances.
Section 205.04.06.A(3) of the Fridley City Code requires that decks e�ctend no more than ten feet into
any required rear yard setback, provided they do not extend nearer than five feet to any lot line.
Public purpose s�ved by this requirement is to maintain adequate open space between structures and to
allow access and maintenance along common property lines.
14,01
VAR #96-02
6496l98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 2 .
The deckiscxcen porch was const�ucted without a pernnt. The vaziance to increase the encroachmerrt of a deck irno
the rear yazd is not typical. Usually, requests are for �croachments into the side yard. The petitioner can reduce
the size of the decic by ranoving the two-foot overhang. This would �bring the deck irno compliance with the code.
Additional changes to the decic will be nequired to mcet the Uniform Building Code (see memo from Ron Jullcowski).
The scxeen porch is considered living space and will be required to be remove�l. The encroachmerrt of the deck is
within previously granted variances for encroa�chiuents within the side yard.
Appeals Commission Action:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request with the stipulations indicated.
Recommendation:
A Staff has no recommendation regard'mg the request to reduce the reaz yard se�back from 27 feet to 26 fe�t..
B. Staff recommends that the City Council d�y the request to increase the encroachment of the deck from 10
feet to 12 f�aet as the pe�tioner can eas7yy reduce the width of the deck to comply. Regardless of the Cauncil's
decision, staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building Code.
4. The screen porch shall be removed.
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For: A variance to: {1) reduce the side yard setback of a dwelling from 27 fee�t to 26 feet;
(2) increase the encroachment of a deck urto the rear yard from 10 feet '
to 12 feet.
Location
of Property:
Legat DescripNon
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Eaisting
Vegetation:
Eaisting
Zoning/Platting:
6496/98 Riveiview Terrace
Lot 1, Block i, Watt Harrier 1 st Addition
10,368 square feet
Flat
Typical subwban; trees, sod, shrubs, etc.
R 3, General Multiple Family, Walt Hanier Addition 1978
` 14.02
VAR #96-02 -
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 3
Availabitity
of Municipal
Utitities: Connected
Vehicutar
Access: Riveiview Tenace
Pedestrian
Access: N/A
Engineering
Issaes: None
Site Planning
Issues:
DEVELOPMENT STTE
R�uest
The variance request is in two parts:
1. To reduce the required reaz yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet (existing condition).
2. To increase the e�croachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feex.
If approved, the requ�t 'u�'ould brin8 into �oe an e�s6ng single family dwelling and a nevvly constructed deck.
Parcel Descri�tion & I�'istoty
The dwellirg on tt�e properly, a duplex, was constructed in 1979. The pazcel is zoned R 3, General Multiple Farnily
Dwellin� �'�re, the duple�c is a p�ed � The dupleY measures 25 fcet by 40 fe�t with an attached three-ca,r
$�ra8e me�uing 22 feet by 30 feet. No ve�f'ying �uve,y was submitte� as required by the buildin� permit at the time
the dwelling was const�ucted.
Analysis
Dwelling
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25% of the lot depth
with not less than 25 feet permitted or more ttian 40 feet required for the main building.
Public P�upose served by this requiranart is to provide rear yard space to be used for gcen areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
�
���1�.03
v�x ��-oa
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 4 —
The dwelling was consttucted prior to the petitioner becoming the property owner. The dwelling was constructed
with a building permit; however the builder did not submit the required verif}nng swvey. The petitioner verified that
the dwelling is located is 26 feet from the rear lot line. Based on the formula to de�tern�ine the rear yard setback
requirement, the re�uired rear yard is 2? fcet. The request to reduce the required setback by one foot is within
previously granted requests.
Deck
Section 205.04.06.A(3) of the Fridley City Code requires that decks extend no more than ten feet into any required
rear yard setback, provided they do not extend nearer than five feet to any lot line.
Public pwpose served by this requir�t is to maiuitain adequate open space between structures and to allow access .
and maintenance along common properry lines.
The original plans for the dwelling indica.ted a 5 foot by 13 foot deck at the southwest corner of the building. The
petitioners constructed, without a permit, a 12 foot by 14 foot deck with a screened porch underneath. The deck
encroaches 12 feet into the rear yard setback.
Even though the deck is constiucted, the petitioner can reduce the size of the deck to the required 10 foot width by
removing the two foot cantilever. A 10 foot by 14 foot deck is of adequate size to function, Because the deck was
not inspected as it was constnicted, which would normally occur if a building permit has bcen applied for, the Chief
Building Official inspacted the deck after it was substantially completed. A number of items will need to be repaired
or reconsaucted in order to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements (see memo from Ron Julkowski).
In reviewing the aerial, it was noted that the building to the south also has a deck to the rear of the dwelling. It
appears that this dwelling does not comply with the setback requiremerns; therefore, its deck also does not camply.
No variances were noted in the file to indicate how this construction occurred.
The subject parcel is located in an unusually designed subdivision. There are three houses located to the rear of the
subject pazcel and its adjacent neighbor to the south. This adds another consideration when analyzing the request.
The propaty to the rear looks orrto the rear yard of the subject parcel. There is no screening fence between the two
properties. Requiring the peritioner to reduce the width of the deck by two feet would reduce the visual impact to
the adjacent property to the rear.
With the const�uction of the deck, the petitioner has also constructed a screened porch below the deck. This porch
c�n be consid�ed living space and would require a further reduction in the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 15 feet.
This is larger than previously granted requests, and staff recommends that the screened porch be removed.
Recommendation
A Staff has no recommendation regarding the request to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet..
B. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to increase the encroachment of the deck from 10
fee� to 12 fcet as the p�titioner can easily reduce the width of the deck to comply. Regardless of the Council's
decision, staff recommends the following stipulations:
14.04
VAR #96-02 _ .
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 5
1. The pe�titioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shatl be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building Code.
4. The screened porch shall be removed.
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
A�peals Commission Action:
ADJACENT SITES
Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Family
Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Family
Zoning: R 3, G�neral Multiple Family
Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Family
Land Use: Residernia!
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: R�deutial
Land Use: Residential
The Appeals Cornmission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.
Comprehensive
P[anning �ssues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
The Zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location.
No one from the audience spoke regai-ding the request.
z; ,,.;
���1�4.05
�
N
�.
VAR �� 96-02
�
JCJEJCLJCLL/ LCL11ttC1
►�l;T:��:�
6496i98 Riverview Terrace
14.06
LOCATI CJ N MAP
�%X_� "
��e�T�e�
�
�Gr
qti
r---�—
��"��
��r o�
VAR �� 96-02
3D View of Yaur Deck Jespersen/Palmer
14.09
�
�
� �
v��
D f
��
Top View of Your Deck
The Scale is 1I4" : 1'
14'
_ ,: ��
�_, s�
VAR ��96-02
Jespersen/Palmer
4'
��� S .
���s� � !�
�� �
� �
a� , ���
Your deck is 9' high
The deck is designed for a 40 PSF live load.
14.10
/a � %�f��'�EL�"
i �; �.� _ _
�--- _
_ _ ___
Ju.��/.�.-�'�';l ��',L_.4-rcl� _ ��.���i�/ �,�'t�r�
�
_- _ _ . �v� 1/l� 1,i/ . �i� �". _ _ __
,� �' ���i��_
/4 .�s ��tia.� _ H/.4,�- a?.�.��' c>,2i /-.� -�6 aC ,�i, _ ,�
1=�=�c .s��✓� _ C��iv � � T �'" _ _ �"li/
_ ___ . _ _ . _ c i��. ___ _ _ ! ST�'� �E4o Gc/ __.�� /n
__ _ _�
____ ��S�iel�.QT/b�_;_ /,�..c�f) �Op � --1t. r:QGlfII�'"i�!IE�N�'J'_. ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ . _ __ ___ .._ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
_ / _ _ _
_ _ _ _ �_ _ ��t'E' _7.�ECft _�_X_?�'�i!%/�' � _ _�r3 _ t__-'�' l�uf�"_ �.��_ _ J� /� �
_ _ �'I_ _.�'y� C`�!
_ _ .�0,�� - �t/�?�d /r!____�D!�''�'--�� "T�"'"-- `�.!�''__.�N..�'-�' �����lE� _�•t/i0'L�.�
., _ _ _ _,_
---- __���•J�:'o'L __?��'_,_ _
_ _ __
__ ___ . _
_ _ __
-- -- � _ ��"__ _�T�!.�vA_y_ __ !'�21.�'7_= �'� �OU/pE�i _ Gvi 7"lc/ i� _ F_ ��� �—
/ _ __
,��'/+''__rt `,! _
_ _� — _,_ __ �- - _ _ _��O.ei�/L. , -- --
------
- -- ___ _ ___
_ ___ _______
---
---. _� _; �����' _ ��� 1 "
_ __ --- -_ �"�iE. ��.�-'��.z.
� _ �,N _ r_�c�" - .��! :_ /iy���
_ _ _ _ - _- --- �D'T__ ��' --- - i� _
''Z- -- ��?'�__ . �'�'��5�.�?�'� _
---_..�_._.--�--- - J.__._.
: �"1�/_ �i./ _ _ _---
,�/ _ . _ _
- -- --- - ---- - - - - -
_ _ ----
- --- --__ _ ---___._ _
�
_ _---�- - -�G- •/t�i��L�--�1�C�"�;/,tl ._ c�!s'�"--f�h��c�"�� ,�1G�'f�" __ �'E --_ _
� �
---------Fl�G�3_ �.J ---�-�?�T�_.��?�'��,�,�,�►iLS ,------ --
--- _ _ _---___-----
----5�-/�i�Tr��--, 1.Ci�__ :'��sz---YE�'__/_.c�'��"�_ __��'.� _ sr��'1'�' _rt/�T _
_------ _.
. -- �v �' r`�_ _
f��7`" cr� ---�,,,��; n�7'-� - �!}5'', __ ___ __ __ . --
_ _ . _--- - -_ _
_ _ .__�o. _�"�___-i¢/11___��, i�L�,_`�`� 1�---�.�LE-- __ ���iE'��'-` O,�(/
_._ ____� ��57'� . _ _ _ �
� 14.11
_._ --
_ ___ --
_-----.__
-- ---------
__ _
_ _ __ _
__ _ �� _ �c��- __ ,/-��-�,¢,�'�,c>�- _S�'�,��L-- _ �'l?".�',�c.�'�, i �= _ .
. __
_._ __ d� _— ,�Y� ,
,�- - -���- ���'��.��-�'��' _ ��-_.�j-�� ____ _ _
, _--__ _ _
Febroary 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
Appeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This letter is in response to the variance request by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
b496/6498 Riverview Terrace regarding the addition of the deck/screened porch in their
rear yard.
My property is adjacent to their rear yard and I have a clear view of the decklscreened
porch. I have no objection to this structure.
Sincerely,
��Le�� ���lL��'��
Ethel Arnold
G492 Riverview Tenace
Fridley, MN 55432
14.12
February 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
Appeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This tetter xs in response to the variance request by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
6496/6498 Riverview Terrace regarding the addition of the deckJscreened porch in their
rear yazd.
My property is adjacent to their reaz yazd and I have a clear view of the deck/screened
porch. I have no objection to tlus structure.
Sincerety,
r �
1��. ,
, ; ., �--� ;
�L1�!f'��� -� �'�`
,.
Dolores Balafas
6482 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
14.13
February 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
t�.ppeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This letter is in response to the variance request by Corinne 7espersen and Janet Palmer
6496/649& Riverview Tenace regarding the addition of the deckJscreened porch in their
rear yard.
My property is adjacent to their rear yard and I have a clear view of the deck/screened
porch. I have no objection to this structure.
Sincerely,
/.!���?�u� , .�il�E,�'''�-�
�`Shirle S�on
Y
6490 Ri�erview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
'' 14:14
CJTY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISStON MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996
�20LL CALL:
Chairperson Savage calied the February 14, 1996, Appeals
order at 7:30 p, m. •
ROL� CALL:
Members P�esent: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle,
Members Absent: Cathy Smith
Carol Beaulieu
Others Presenf: Scott Hidcok, Plannin oordinator
Michele McPhe � lannir�g Assistant
� Chris Huber, Su rintendent of Schoots,
Independent I District #16
Cori�ne J rsen, 6496 Riverview Terrace
Janet P mer, 6498 Riverview Terrace
Ca agner, 7656 N.E. Van Buren Street
D can Wagner, 7656 N.E. Van Buren Street
r�eeting to
MOTION b r. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu. to approve the January 24, 1996,
Appeals ommission minutes as written.
UP/PfN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
N�OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATiON OF VARtANCE REQUEST VAR #96-02
BY CONNIE JESPERSEN AND JANET PALMER: �
Per Section 205.07.01.03.D.(3).(aj o� the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 27 feet to 26 feet; ar�d
Per Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the
encroachment of a deck into the rear yard se#back from 10 feet to 12 feet to allow
the construciio� of a new dedc or� Lot 1, Blodc 1� Walt HaRier First Addition, the
same being 6496/98 Riverview Te�race N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seoonded by Dr_ Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearirig
notice and to open the public hearing. _
�4.15
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 p� 2
UPON A VO10E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAlRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAREO THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBUC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the paroei is (ocated at 6496f�498 Riverview Terraoe,:which �s
focated at the end of Mississippi Wajr sou� ofi the East River Road apa�tments. ' The �
request c�onsists of tw�o p�ts. The first request is to reduce the required rear yard setback `;
� ;:.
from 27 feet to 26 feet to oar�ect an e�dsting oaxiition. The seoond request �s to incxease - :��
the encroachment of a dedc into the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet .
Ms. McPherson stated that on the prope�ty is a dweiling constructed as a duptex in 1979.
The dwetling was consbuc�ed prior to the petitioners becoming tt� owners. The parcei as
zoned R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling; therefore, the duplex is a permitted use on the
property. No verifying survey was supplied by the buifder. Ver�fying surveys are a
requirement of the originai buitding permit proc;ess. -
Ms. McPherson stated the first request is to reduoe the rear yard setbadc from 27 feet to
26 feet, This is calculated based on 2596 af the tot depth. This request is:wi#hin previously
granted requests; therefore, staff has no recommendation.
Ms. McPherson stated the second request is to incxease the encroachment of a deck into
the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet The petitioners recen#ly oompleted cons#ruction of
a 12 foot x 14 foot deck which encroaches 12 feet into the rear yard. As part of the
oonstruction, they encfosed ihe underside of the dedc to cxeate a s�creened porch. Severai
pictures showing the constnaction were shovm. This scxeened porch vvas cans#ructed
without a permit. The Building Division noticed the constructiar�, c�ntacted the property
owners, and told them they would need to apply for a permit. Ms. McPherson asked the
Chief Building Official to inspect the deck. At that time, the struc�ure was substantiatly
completed. The Chief Building OfFcials's oomments are induded as part of the staff report.
A number oi items wil! need to be changed in order to comply with the building c�de.
Ms. McPherson stated the origina� p�ans indude a dedc measuring 5 feet x 13 feet located
in the area of the newly oonstruc�ed dedc, Sia� analyied the pe�ioner�' options regarding
the deck and reviewed the plans submitted by the petitioner. There is a two-foot cantitever
on the deck Staff has reoommended the variance be denied as the petitioners could
remove the cantilever to the support beam and bring the dedc into compliance.
Ms. McPherson stated the code allaws for the ena-oac;hment of unenctosed dedcs into the
rear yacd; however� it does not permit endosed decks or porches to encroach into the rear
yard. This poses an additional varianoe requirement as the lower ievei is enclosed. Staff
recommends the petitioners be required to remove the porch as a variance would be
required to reduce the rear yard setbadCfrom 27 feet.to 15 feet.
14.1s..
,k
APPEALS COI�tISSION MEETING, FEBR�IARY 24 , 1996 PAeGE 3
Ms. NAcPhersort stated staff has r�o teoommendation reganding !he fust request to reduoe
the rear yard setbadc from 27 feet-to 26 fee�. This is within previously granted requests.
Staff reoanmetxis deniai of fhe t�equest �o inaease the encx+oachrnent of the dedc from 10
feet #012 feet as the dedc can be reduoed to meet the r+equit+ements. Regardless af the
Commission's deasion; staff �ends the foilawing stipulations: -
9. The petitioner shall appiy for and receive a buildir�g permit
2.
3.
4.
The decic artd footings sha!! be inspec�ed:
Clianges shatl be made to the dedc so that it complies with the Unifam Building
Code.
The screened porch st�al! be removed.
Ms. Savage stated the Comm'�ssion does not have a variance request for the endosed
porch.
Ms. McPherson stated that is con-e�ct.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the stairway could encroach.
Ms. McPherson sfated, yes.
Dr. Vos asked the depth of the 1ot,
Ms. McPherson stated the lot is 108 feet deep.
Dr. _ Vos stated they usually do not run up against that encxnachmer�t. Even if the scxeened
porch was moved back to the 10 faot marlc� it wouid stili be encxoaching. -
Ms. McPhersor� stated this is correc:t. The code is very dear an w�enclosed dedcs. A
screened por+ch is considered living spaoe because it is screer►ed.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there would be a probiem if the dedc was put in the side yard to fhe
soufh. �
Ms. McPherson stated she did not have a verifying suniey so she did not know the exact
dimension. There is approximately 20 feet Again the code says a deck can encroach 3
feet into the side yard as long as d is not doser than 5 feet from the !ot line. The maximum
deck on the side yard would be 13 feet �
. ,
Fi4.17 '
�
`r
� `f.
APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY ld, 1996 PAGE Q
Ms. Jespersen stated she and Ms. Paimer purchased the duplex about six years ago. At
that time, the outside was a disaster with overgrown trees, a parking lot to the side, and
cars that had to be removed. They now have grass growing ar�d have la�dscaped and �
cieaned up the property. The dupiex had a dedc before; and because her son-in-law
knows how to build dedcs, he put in the new deck. She did not kraw they had to get a` ��
permit. She cannot change the Iocation of the house being over the line.
Ms. Paimer stated that if the house was sitting in the right position, they would then be
encroaching by one foot They are taiking about one foot The reason they enciosed the
bottom half is that they iive by the river and have mosquitoes. An open dedc is unusabie
because of the mosquitoes. ft is just a sitting spaoe - not a livi�g space. They probably
woutd not have enclosed it if not fo� the insects there.
Ms. Jesperser� stated she talked to her son-in-law ar�d he said he would be willing to make
the changes required. The deck is on the badc of the house because that is the location
of the patio doors.
Ms. Savage stated they would be conforming if they removed the two foot cantilever.
Ms. Jespersen stated they built the deck at 12 feet because most iumber is 12 feet in
length. Going out 10 feet would cwst the same but they would have to cut off two feet. She
did not know they were encroaching. On the drawing, it shows that the stairs come out.
It did not look good to have the stairs come out too far and does r►ot loo4c right. If they take
off two feet whe�e they have the stairs, they will have to redo the stairs aiso.
Dr. Vos asked if the duplex was set back from the front of the lot.
Ms. Jespersen stated the garage is up front
Ms. Paimer showed before and after pictures of the property.
Dr. Vos stated the petitioner c�ould be meeting or even exceeding code requireme�ts in the
front.
Ms. McPherson stated that without a veriiying survey, she cannot say. The petitioner is
pretty confident of the 26 foot dimension in the back.
Ms. Palmer stated they have three families living behind their property who have no
objections.
Ms. Savage asked why the issue of the porch is �ot before the Commission..
14.18
APPEALS CONIl'sISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14 , 1996 PA�GE 5
Ms. McPherson stated stafF did not notify the adjacent }xoperty owners for that it would
require �enotification. Staff c�uld w�oric out the issue and perhaps waive the fee if that is
what the petitia�ers want to pu�sue.
Mr. Hidcok stated ihat if it is okay with the petitioners and if the petitioners wisM to pw^sue
the porch issue, staff weuld work ttuough !he fee issues and renoti#y adjaoent properly
owners. Proceduralty� sfaff would like to bring it to the Councii as one padcage. At the
next meeti�g, staff would bring badc the scxeened porch issue for a decision and then
bring the entire request to the CounciL
There were no further oomments from the pubiic
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle� seconded by Dr. Vos, to ctose the public hearing.
UPON A VOlCE VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTlON CARRIED AND THE PUBLtC HEARtNG CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated they could tabie this item so they c�uid consider both at the same time.
Mr. Kuechle stated they oould approve the 12 feet !n looking ai the aerial photo, it looks
as if the space between the dedc and the house to the west is quite a bit, so it is not likely
ihey are right on top of the adjacent house. He did not see a big problem. He is not very
symp�thetic to those who build and do not get a permit, but he can see how it may have
happened. By and large, the impact is minimal. The porch will be tougher because the
encxoachment is not large. ff they were just dealing with the varianoes as presented, he
would recommend approva! with the stipulations.
Ms. Beaulieu agreed. •
Dr. Vos stated he did nof think of the scxeened porch as being different than a deck. He
did not see any advat�tage of sawing off ivwo feet They still have the step pro6lem. There
is the hardship that the fiouse is set abnormally badc on the lot. They c�uldn't even put
a stidc out the back because of the way the house was constructed.
Ms. Savage stated she would agree with the remarks made. What are the limitations as
far as the porch?
Ms. McPherson stated that as opposed to attaching the porch to the house, the petitioner
has the opiion of building a detached gazebo. This wouid provide the same desire but
does not get into code issues. They cx�uld go within three teet of the !ot line with a
maximum of 240 square feet without a varianc�e.
Ms. Savage stated the petitioner cannot extend badc #or an er�closed living structure.
, ;.
►
�14.19 �
APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PA+GE 6
�
Ms. McPherson stated the code clearly calis out unenclosed dedcs versus endosed
spaces.
Or. Vos stated the same issue would oome up if they were proposing a dining room
addition into the badc yard or a screened porc�. Both v�ouid require a variance. ~. �
i:
�
Mr. Kuechle suggested maki�g a reoommendation on the variance. If the petit'wner . �` s
decides not to pursue the issue of the scxeened porch, this can then be forvvarded to the `
City CounciL
MOT10N by Mr: Kuechle, sec�onded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Varianc:e :
Request� VAR #96-02; by Connie Jespersen and Janet Palmer to reduce the rear yard `
setbadc from 27 feet to 26 feet; and to incxease the encxoachment of a deck into the rear
yard setbadc firom 10 feet to 12 feet to aliaw the �onstnx�ion � a new dedc on Lot 1. Biock '
1, Walt Harrier First Addition, the same being 6496J98 Riverview Te�race N.E., with the -�
following stipulations: -
1. The petitioner shafl apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the dec,lc so that it complies with the Uniform Building
Code.
4• The screened porch shall be r�noved. (tf the petitioners pursue the a variance for
the porch, this stipuiation will be deleted.�
Dr. Vos stated he oould not vote a� this motion with the stipulation to remove the screened
porch. They do not know what the petitioners will do.
Ms. Savage stated the irrtent is that the petitioners wil! have the opportunity to come badc
with a variance request for #he porch if they decide to keep i�
Mr. Kuechle stated that if the petitioners decide to take the screened porch out, they then
do not have to come back
Ms. McPherson stated that if the petitioners submit a variance request for the porch, it
would negate that stipulation.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14.20
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, REBR�JARY 14, 1996 PAGE 7
Ms. McPherson stated this request would go before the City Council on February 26
because s�ta�f reoorrunended denial o� the request If the petitioners decide ta come in for
a new variance for the porch, staff witl then hold both requests.
�
Per.Secc�io� 205.07.03.0.('!) of Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to 30.25 f to ailaw the construction of an addition at 880
Osbome Road N.E. (Woodcrest mentary Schoo!).
M TiON by Mr. Kuechle, seoaided by Dr:
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HE
to waive the reading of the public hearing
�ERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance �equest is Woodcxest Eleme�tary School located
at 880 Osbome Road. The request is to redu the required ftont yard setback from 35
feet to 30.25 feet. The variance is to allow con ction of a 2,645 square foot addition
onto the front of the school. The school di .'ct is currently doing a number of
improvements to elementary schools in the district d this improvement is a part of other
improvements that will be oocurring at Woodcxest i uding ADA improvements, improving
administrative spaces, misce!laneous repairs, and weatherization improvements. The
proposed addition is ta the tibrary located at the front the school. The district proposes
to expand the tibrary space and add a media room f computers and other technology.
Ms. McPherson stated there is more adequate space ta
parts of the school. However, from a programmatic ar
more sense for the addition as it is directly tied to the libr
width of the variance is actually to accommodate an re
outdoor access. This is a uni%m� �ire and building code
variance would not exist.
Mr. Kuechle asked if they could pull everythi�g back.
provide additional room on other
functional standpoint, it makes
space and ifs expansion. The
ired exit door to provide direct
r uireme�t. !f not required, the
Ms. McPherson stated #hey would have io redesign the stai y in order to have enough
space at the landing to provide exit space. The variance i within previously granted
requests. !f approved, staff recommends the follow��g stipul ion:
Relocation of the below-ground storage tank shall
permitting requirements.
14.21
with Fire Department
li�.�c:xirl�iutv ur� KEQUEST:
The petition� requests a variance to reduce the rear yazd setback from 27 feet to 15 fe�t. If approved,
the request would bring into compliance a recently constructed screened porch. This request is related
to VAR #96-02, to increase a deck encroachment into the rear yazd setback.
HARDSHIP:
"Deck/screen porch built too close to property line."
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
While the porch was constructed without a pern�it and was completed at the time of the application, the
request was analyzed as if no construction had occurred.
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Ciiy Code requires a rear yazd setback of not less than 25%
of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public Purpose secved by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which
enhance the neighborhood.
The screen porch was const�ucted without a petmit and is iocated undea- a recently constructed deck. The
va�iance request to reduce the rear yard setbacic is within previously granted variances. Previous variances
granted have different and unique circumstances, and the petitioners have the option of consm�cting a
detached gazebo with no variances required.
APPEALS COMNIISSION ACTION:
The A.ppeaLS Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.
RECOIVIl�ZENDATION:
While the request is within previously granted variances (a variance was granted to 13.8 feet), staff
recommends that the City Council deny the request due to the following:
1. The petitioner can construct a detached, screen enclosed, gaz.ebo without a variance.
2. The previously granted variance had substantially different circumstances (windowless side yazd).
3. This request visually impacts the front yard of an adjacent property.
15.01
VAR �6-�
649b/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 2
Petition For:
Location
of Property:
Legal DescriptEOn
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Eaisting
Vegetation:
Ezisting
Zoning/Platting:
Avaitability
of Municipal
Ut�ities:
Vehicaiar
Access:
Pedestrian
Acc�cs:
Engineering
Issues:
Site Planning
Issues:
PROJECT DETAILS
A vaiiance to reduce the side rear yard sexback of a dwelling from 27 feet to 15 fcet
6496/98 Riverview Temace
Lot 1, Block 1, Wa�t Harrier 1 st Addition
10,368 square feet
Flat
Typical suburban; trces, sod, shrubs, etc.
R-3, General Multiple Family, Walt Harrier Addition 1978
Connected
Riverview Terrace
N/A
None
DEVELOPMENT STTE
R uest
The variance request is to reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 15 feet (existing condition).
If approved, the request would bring urto compliance a newly constructed screen porch .
15.02
VAR #96-06
649b198 Riverview Tenace N.E.
Page 3
Parcel Description & Historv
The dwdling on the property, a duplex, was conswcted in 1979. The parcel is zonerl R 3, Gene�rral Multiple FanWy
Dwdlin� tt�efor� the dupkx is a pe�mitted use. The duplex measures 25 feet by 40 fcei with an attached three-car
Sarage me�uring 22 fcet by 30 f�e,t. No v�tifying stuvey was �btmtted as required by the building permit at the time
the dwelling was constcucted.
The petitioner recendy proces,Sec1 a variance request, VAR #96-02, to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to
26 fcet and to incma.se the e�x�'oachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet. Staff was not aware of
the porch at the time of that variance applicatioa
sis
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25% of the lot depth
with not less than 25 feet petmitted or more than 40 feex required for the main building.
Pubhc Purpose served by this requi�nerrt is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
The dwelling was constructed by a previous property owner. The dwelling was constructed with a building permit;
however, the bu�der did not submit a ve�ying sutvey. The petitioner field verified tizat the dwelling is locate�l is 26
feet from the rear lot line. Based on the formula to determine the rear yard setback requirement, the required rear
yard is 27 feet. The City has �viously giarrted requesrts to reduce the rt�r yard setback for porches to 13.8� fcet and
1? feet. In both rases, the lots vve.�e u�nque when compared to this request. In the first request, the proposed porch
faced a windowless side yard of the adjaoe� dvu�elling. The second request was located on Glen Creek Road and the
porch was scrcened and separated from adjacent properties by the creelc and vegetation In this request, the porch
visually impacts the frorrt yard of the adjacent property to the rear (see aerial photograph).
The petiiioners ha.ve the alternative of construcdng a detached ga7.ebo without a variance. There are no alternatives
for an attached screen porch in the rear yard due to the original placement of the home on this site.
Recommendation
W1vle the request is within previously ganted variances (a variance was grarited to 13.8 feet), staff recommends that
the City Council deny the request due to the following:
The petitioner can construct a detached, screen enclosed, gazebo without a variance.
2. The previously grar►ted variance had substantially differe�t circumstances (w�ndowless side yard).
This request impacts the front yard of an adjacent property.
15.03
VAR #96-06
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 4
ADJACENT STTES
WEST: Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Fa�Wy Land Use: R�idential
OITTH: Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Family I.and Use: Residential _
EAST: Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Family Land Use: Residential
NORTH: Zoning: R_3, General Mulhple Family Land Use: Residernial
�nneals Commission Action-
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The
Commission felt that the porch as presented "fit" the dwelling and was the best a(ternative when compared with
the detached gazebo.
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Pu6tic Hearing
Camments:
The Zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location.
No one from the audience spoke regarding the request.
15.04
vAK ���6-06
Jespersen/Palmer
N
�
VAR #96-06
64 6/98 Riverview Terrace
.o
CAT14N MAP
�► �A�.' ��. M� ` � � . -�!+, �. •• '.
�t'.1�" f �/ `( �s ,R.' , , .
:.'. ''• • .:��..' -
, ��, ' , y ,��. ,,
y�'!� �t;j. , . ' R ;..
�.. .�.' • . . �
�� .S . .w, `�j��;{a�;.�' `t,��
, A � `� :, ,,
-. ' •
•.+; ! .
°-- _ ,
- ! � I , ' ''
\ �: �
', ` I
' � ,
'
, ,
. .
.. . , .
:— _ . � �
9 , �` ,
.i ' ` 1 ' :�'�
! � �
, ' � ' ' .�
{. , , ,.
- '� , �
� 1;� ` I` i. �� F E �
— � � �' ! t ��� _� � ,�-,e�.
; :, _
�.� — ' . � - 1 ; �.� _ �.
� � �' ` ' � ��
�� _�_ � i _I + ��� ' t.��,. �; `�_ .
� � . . - °_ .! . �� �'
r�.. .
r_ 't�ti'bF r3��'t.`'*r .;_°a. i .. .
�..; �.... � � t .
" _ ��' . �i ifi.?F�i�,-p�� - tf' r��`- wa ,F � .-
, . . . . � 94 >. ' -'c-�. '
i ..�1•.... �'.-. ' -� .������y�r��`��Ja'"�:!_ �r ,� s �
� � � '�' �'� v''v�NMy� ,.� �Y,�..
I i : ' i ,,�r � t _ .'g� i . � �- ` .: '.,,t'�:'�K -- �ti jt'' �r K.4r�yr.r �� � � .
I �. . . , - � - �, , s G .
� ���������`" g'�.. - �'R' � �` ,p �"� ' `>.
��, �'.�� /"� {}'-' 'R- -i��5 s � _ ..: Y�
�� .�-a "S' s .
` _ � �.+- � r �._,.-�r� . _� �. . ,�.
� � � { S
` � isT�i< ..
\' ����`sa � ^
r �i` .x '
` i� - ��� , �~•' .
.a��, �r..:
r.. x�
T .
�%`r� y'.
_ - � •v .
.
� � y��
•\.i .,��
_ _ _ .—� -.�. - .
`�� X �zA
�,' y .
i � I � � ,�� aer � ` y, � � �j `�1�1i_ �?;� �./�i �
( . � .�'; 1._ . i � • •
�" �f'.l '��.`�
� � �� , N,r N _
� .. I � � ✓'� •� y�� . .
` ��
._. � —__ � I I > / � 1���� , _
� .
. -. : .�— . � ..`-`._.. _ .F . �. �.� .
�
1 ' ��i^ � � r �'�•
��f, :�f � �Y• !���� ';Ia
.-1�. `:. "��i+ ' :Y.`?, :� ,��, n?"�7�;
,,_ j'�t �`? � , �r" � "��i`' �'�:� �
;� a � ,: R •r, � -� �� � � , - , r ;+J
��, ��� L t� "), r , � � � j. � � I� ��,-r �'
� •,� �...� . �cC� ��4; .� ��4- �'� iE�� �� � ,It F'� � (/ �� j 1�
��. , - ➢ .. i -t�` ' '�f .� �i .l � <� �'t,�r1 QsyL�.�C I ` ' `,
. � [�.• '1,y�j \/ l �S+ ���- �. � 1i{ � r�(� 1 / l
r''� • � � � r � ` } r� � �� � /\.
�� .', , ' � s..�� ''�,��� � �-. - t�..y.,�.����� ��j �T`�� t �e'
�� ;�. � � _ � �� � � � � '1 ' � � �'� � ��C pt �I� �. �� � �� ������ �
� + � / ` � "'-..� ,- %,� ��' 1 )��� � , a r'S yr�
\;� ' `�'.��.,� I.�u.��:� .' �'��1 ��(� �_ 1511'�.,\i�tL�'�''g',.`�'s�i�►� �l � _ ,�
�y� ;P5
YJ4
:'ZY �✓
N ;::
1
.s.. ,
'� ��;�,��„_�
�; ? , ..:"' l
.`�, '�';? � � ,j
� ,_ , .
r"•� _ �
..'.Aw� •� ,
�_.
= 3���� �v: � � s � � I
� � �
� � � ,�� � � ����;.�� ����f ►
' ; ''��, .;,�h��`;`�.��
►��. ���i� � �; ,
� (� ��
� � ; i
- "!� kI�
:�.- -
,._.. .;��'`_
..�:�4�j . _ -. -ac
��� : �
, d: � . . . �1�
� -1�-•-. , r
y J ~ •�
_ _ � #j� � j�'� �_ ,'r.�.�
� � r . �,/;_��
. ,,� �� �,
__. � � .:�..�
/� _ � w'�'
['. � .- %!.i_ .
�� ►, �,.
_ , �fy �, ��
..: �
� � .� � _�
='L.`--1 � � Y-'�
�►
�.. 4
T t '.'V
t,;,.. _ - .
'��,k•�Jin� ..
i .:.'.��.. . ..
> , `�-� y . ' 'p � � i � � z °T � � y ��.�;�E��'�
Pi�
.: •'. } r- ,t� ,.
: - � . �-�,`F �� f� :� •}•
' . _ ri: � : ,'�• 'e::� j' i
• . K � . . � � � ' � ^ " c S'�i ����
`�_ .. � ' :af%' �p��
. . � i ;� _ 'i ,�... _ .+�,
,
: - . � � �- .
V _
.f . a •� . Z5�7 ; . 1 — y� _
^. . L,'" � ,.. ;'l� ``. I :};-i ; � . _ Y >
i �' - . a;,:t � �� e :
.. 'J . ry r/��, �i ' � . �"" .
'___ �,�r�?I' . ����II.I�� + �,�' � 1 ' � ..r.
� � ��
�' `�. �,� �\ 4 �� E � .
�� �i� 1,,.. �, _ � ��
� �� I � ';� ' �' - , ' ?' �"' �' .
"�� � � ,_, �' .. . ` .
��
r�
yc ..
M •.
L�✓
k .�X ;� �-� � . . A� 4} �R '
�, :Q �;� ��. ��1.�'-�., .
h` �x,,�,�,... � ,.
���4 : , . �%
��._ - ��i �
r-�Y' '.' .i ..
�y�, . . . 1 ','� .
. aN._ . ,� i,S� � . � ti .
♦ 'l , .
��' . . �f' . i � .
r" �' �. , �
�+° • �:� ���. , ,
��
. . �' �
- ,� . ;
�� ��'���� � �
��.�. ii' _ -
� : , � ���
� � ;�,
. _ , �,�
jR�' . . " i . :Y�.
,' Sy] .�✓I " E i �a I _
, _ ,�,�'� -- � - i
, , � r��
� - '� - -
-.�_
_ ..�.: , �C'r �:��'t
1 j•-
�
..,.��_ -x � r .; ; , _ � .
p.,. ,,�`7-.r. --r ."�, `._-�j. -...
- ..��s �.��P i� .. ,
s ��
.. �� y1 .� �j
— r � ' _ .
. .�� '?�� l _--:�, I ` ' . ._
_�, : !'
. . . ' � ��� . . �
_ -�;. i� �y.
� ,
�
.. � . ,�p .� t���� � s- `-
�. � / � l � . ��t;� b. ���d',�.., .. ' .
i _. .
r . , -' �', '� �#: . . .
✓ � ��'�'l ��..A �,. .� ,�rCi'r7."';.
' ���1' - . �4'
' ��.' , . - ,�, _
��
��
�
�_
�
� - -n.>.+_ ... �.,: ,.r� . ,,..:.s, �:� <� „�:�1� .,:_�..r,..o, � .. ��.,•..,, 1M,..:..:.2,isuitt�,s�.i. .2>.>ut,.9,���t.;...i�8�+>•>.,o.�.•.:t>ot>�s<.t ..aft!��nt>nifiRR�b:52s.sis2�tst?Rf.stR32S2fifiS2feSYiis:i2iif2i2ftA5likSFSil2Rfri2fiSiftf232fkiStf7i?S�Sii2ilit
� VAR �i96-Ob
� Jesperse�/Palmer
;� �a .X a
� � � � _�
� �
i _+
`� � Z�
- � /�
J ----. ��
1f
f'
��S ,
�4 1
�+
�
�
��
� �
'i � �
��
/
n ,
� 15:09
Q.� � �
�
� �'
v a S d
4' �
G � � �S ,
� v ,�
�
^�, q�'
� 1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1
t
..`,
. ;
II
:� .
v
�
4'�
�.I�
,n
`�J
�
�
�
�
.
/��'bd
�
� � dd
� y6
�� ,��
i �
�. �
15.10
VAR ��96-06
Jespersen/Palmer,� .
L, /J
�� d
<SiY� v
� �
�. � ° I
�� J
V" G
� b° � O_,
:{3��.
.a �
,
i
i
.�
��
�V
�,
�_y
v
nO
V
�
�
�
�
�
\V
�
�
�
�
�
�
� J
�
�^l�
�
��
.
vax �� 9�
Jespers� almer
��
N
r�I �
V'
�
S
� J
V
V
� -
X
:^�
�
..L
�
d
�
�
O�
�
�
�
y
ti
�
0
15.11
�
J
J
y
b
�
�
K
'¢
6.
�
�(
Y +
�
3, T. 3�, R. 24
�R/OL EY
3
w,v�a _
ye .�_
� r�6 �!
e '
� �
C
� .a .
,. .
� G
(w ,. '
e � �PNp ;�
v ��o, ::� � �
�G� � �O � �
= ��
s I
`E 5° ,
� ��� � �
A �, I
::;• -�r'�iJ vy,r_ I
��WN.. I
.
�_�•
ceh er t'.�r.y
. �. � f`
P p,R
�
1 �H�
i;. --'
?: (td
VAR ��9b-06
Jespersen/Palmer
�
iHIS IS A COMPIIAiION Cf RECORDS AS �
iHfY AIIEAR IN iHE AN'JKA COUNiYJ
OfPKES AffEG71NG iHf RRfA SNOWN. �
7MIS ORAWING IS i0 !E USED ONtY fOR �
REFERENCE IUR►OSES AMD fHE COIiN�
TY IS N01 RESPON519!E fOR ANY IN� i
' ACCURACIES H::E1N CONIAINEO.
539/3
�
NECONNEN �
SEC. /3
��s l�•. � ..
2 ' � ��' Yb �9 � I ' :l
• ' f wl ``\�
�;1� � � \� <` , �, .
`` � � N
( ;a I �'� �• � (� + I � I
�: � ��: " � I
,�,�.,a...oY...,
m r� �
i e + �E�\ I ha �
� ? � ��, � L---��[ �j�j��[��
I -\ p i� O b �lO�LGrL.c_ �._��� J
s GE r___ _ I
.i I p g� I
s..,,� "�
� � � .
� a .
H �
� • �r� J
. f:s o�' I O�UI °,. '� a" c.�� s��u (inl � O
.,y.,.._ _ , ,>.: F s �,, � �E � ,�,,,. ,..,r.,. —
� ,w avno� �
2 '�; 0'3 _ .�.. I ^�
S,'
� _' REE�,. ,.,.,,, i �---
• � — — , +r � G �..... ,..,....; •!.
i ,. .. .
^ ^
J � J. :
�-,
� $r.
:' i N I � �'�"
O� °' RIC�
��• ra., .: �� _ �•�� �,"- ,r+f .
_ - A ...�.i� "' .s�k � `=sK ��, ;!
I � u, � . . "ti� :�^N ri s , (�6
fi
� �"D JVNIS `, � . .,. .�: � _ , �_�. �°. �
� ^;. ' . � � t�• .
� �' s� r i �� ' =�. •• , ' '• : ��'!�"� � � o
ic `` 4 �`�'`� —.�.�L�- r' j � 7 ; 1 n .,!' •.. � P�%' . \ � i
� - -�-- � �' a, L,MJ4~D�DIT/,ON " ,'2,r,.-:,,,: i !`�:�t.
Q • i..>� � .
I iv� f � � : � " � � ^ ; ;^ :;' � ' °'"e'.;; ,.:�
I .. i � � � � � .>��, �p � �c �<
��+= �"�k66T AVE. N.E. • �3:' '• ` ",
� • J /l i ` �. :.� �r-, IJ.. ^' ��• R�O i
/�J � t � !+� �'(.�, : • �{ q e ;. i ` ; • �i� .
� �,�. :� ,�4;':>��'e i t� '''i ��f
�. l�.w..a-n.. : C ; .' . �' .: e�-c�— � "^ - r :."�.•' e
�. e...... O �. .r ; * •_ e`: :� r\'}t:�`= ,
;� � Q n:,'p�' t��r` -`;Py •i:z ib �i��i1'
" �� E. `��Ii: .i�`i ..
�: 6� � �•. ..- '.: - i i9 :� t:�'.r Q-p'�' =t4,�'
� � "'�DE ! t': ; � ^ � " � :CREEK, '' .�� "-
1N� "` -� ' � � • ,
� � ;� ` : � � ti ;�..:,� , • �
�C� •' � � �� �: l�'�i i! '
CR K•PARK LN. ��.r'� �'+ : ���` .�.. ��`�".:..v,
. .'(�i y. pi r a y. Q ��) nM
�t' all � J �D r« t �- t � (a` I p�) e p�
- . �- � 2 .., b �. ��{ :: a'°"
�'' ic d �� /214e /�•� •i `�a.��rJ W
':RL$. L7�. t, �,�,,M�, ��Vy.'Qy. Uo? 6�.. . I
. .� V' i�_ p �� �'�i.n ^
�' �C
�\PAR i
F..... ..• v
mc:
L� .�. . �-�. h� ���1� �;: yI.�w. y,
:zetdl 1�� �" :�. Q 73 Nl t%2� 3
: ,,, ; ,�, ..,a � +
. s� s ! ;661/2 AVE. N.E.
Z� ' `a E�a .. .
af w� � • Y :�' / �'�.' ! :
Z
o = , �'°� . �n `1i' zq., n
z o/a� io F�7 W r Q, �
zo � 9 W 3 23
' -. /160 :4rj : _ .. ��
n ii i.� p F; ¢V ��
i� i� ,�, .-v� n� h' y� �
+ is c� : ; �
66 T N W AVE. ; N. E. ; __
.r. /V 7 41 > / ' Ir) ' .. r ...
'2eEoy z : Z bnrf - : �� � ; il�� -�C1
z�ry� .-a , F W 4� �ii �aw� ��2 �. • c2 �QN
zcw� _ t_ N ?, " s� , ` . �. .,?3\ ,3W5'
¢s�: ,n.� � Wzs .F W FM + ' J .
ac .7 Y zs •� J � _ �t r
,2a • 6M � �1z � B h�+ � - b , 4 ..1�
7 �9 �� 2 rz � f � p � )
2. q � � � Q (NZ� . N _ 4. . �._ ��i, L�!
•'° - � . ze i.
� � ) M� /1 ► V'�: 9 • �z
� d �3 i /!
/7 iQ. i . : v v
i6 ��,`. t�. i(�'iie+ a
i
L�
�.
}�Y�
�._
� z ...� a ..... � _ ,. ..1 n � . ' s . . , � � —. : _.--�.-�.+ -
- - 1.. I nn • S
- —=vvSY�-AfB-HWY.�10-�A6- �"' ---- a--� `'
� �.
1 � [ ii RNew •�.:
15. �„
14 ,_
i3 1495 CREEK PARK LANE ROtAND W. ANDERSON 3y.;;
I � COUNiY SURY�Y07
f�/O!� :'XM•. wMfO�� ���
I � •'
�
simi�ar reauest. nrevious�v anuroVed � L O C A T i O N M
,•
RONALD F. yIEYER
I.9.ND SIIRVEYOR
Lar�o Surrver�r�o Susoms�ori Dca�aw
Tcur►+oNC 771-439d
983 JE531E 5T. �� ST. PAUL, MINN. 33101
VAR 1�96-06 '/
JesP�e�%�aL�'��"tl� /�� �.,c.�
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me and that i am a duly
Registered Land Su�veyor under the laws of the State of Mi�nesota. •
T�
Reg. No. 9051 Date: Nove�ber 4, 198�+
_ ,�o . �a � ��.y ,o /986
�I
�
� Scalet 1" = 3p•
, . 30
. . �
y S�de yard of adjacent house �
--ti 97•3 - - 1�%7- �
1 i �.zs 98 _� I
� � �
� .�: � � �--,,,� � i
, j �N �'��.. S.yB 3S3 T "�i� I
1� /S.S t'ti:% •,�N•o o j I
� � N� '`�� � 2yo l O
� a O
�1� � 0.�1 � r�o 0
C N y� I
., • � i , � �101 N �
L ?S. 7 0
, q .13 o a 2.3 I
� �� ti
, c,, � , . �� •I
� � � o. �
. � I � /O r�'� l/fi�if1/''`�EJ�� I
1 '—'.--- �� � —1� l0
�G �O0 �2. 32 � � Z3�,h�
/ 1451 �
�
N K , �RK
�
� R� '
/ �
o Indicatea iron monument placed
^��
�I�I
�
`
�
jo �l
'`
�
�i
�
�o•�y'� I
�
L R NE N• E.
15.13
Lot 11� Block 2, CrZEEKRIDGE. anoka I�iinneaota.
1495 Creek Park Lane
,
Similar request, previously approved
i
i
i
i
�
�
�
�
VAR ��96-06
JespersenfPalmer
0
N �/2 SEC. /O, T. 30, R. 24 .
� C/TY OF FR/OLEY
a
a
\ �
1
�
12
13
1VJ
lW_J
��y
�
,��E N.E
set. io
bV V!1 I T
HIC.HiNAY R/ W -
� PL AT NO. 28
n _. �
__ � . � �5 GLEN CREEK ROAD I
Similar request, previousiy approved I L O C A T 1
, ON MA P
..��i� � �.. _... '•`�ili .��r
. . ._ .•o�:� =u..i_ ,
. ' . .'w •. ' . = f: " N •.
. . ' '.�.c._5L �
�hDUSTquL — JUD:Ctw�
'+:S.h::55 — TCPOGItAPHICAI
C.7Y LO:S — P�,ATTlhG
� - ... .�� ."....
�
VAR ��96-06
Jespersen/Palmer
f :�:�i() ti Fiif � � ! �%�i �
it£G:,7£REO UNOtN L�W9 OF SfATE O/° ��:NNESGTA /
l�GlNL20 BY OROINANCS OF GTY OF MeNNEAPO�i� %�
32ti PLYMOUTH OUILDING FE:•ERAI. 6-9727
HENNEPIN AT SIXTH • MINNEAPOLIS 3. MI!dNES�TA
r
i'��`.'3::'iel(',] :�I4
�. r-•. :�arr�,iO�r
Giv:t [P�GlNEEA
i.�c��.�•.✓.. ��ta
�Ah�E:s fVEL50V
SURV£VCR
rsT�:it,18MED 142't
M°_l'ROP()LIYAfV LAI
�riirticpor's �rrtifitatr SURVErOAS. �e..u�.�ti..co
• `) ���';.
;; GCeek R � �,v�..�
�gn 3�, ` _�
r
/`�/� , -.
` f .
:-� _
, , �--�
. :.t
t. �
R
_ �.. �
%
�
GLot ..:
1�""
,,,
J"��`''
�
'.
� � ' . i' `� � .-r
% .�
:�
ic�
os-,�--�-_ :,
A
�_
i
1
• ��
:�
I�
i�
K 1 �
��
i ,
.�
. '
�� " � .
� � "e
: ��'
. :
�.""� y 5' `y�
' / - �%• f k� ~ ��� . c� �
m�
19• � <? r ' 'o
.;:.�� -_��._.'�._..� � ��.s
r— .�
i
1
'��
-�
:ti �
i :f)
i
�0 7�
.. -� V.
� �5 Glen Creek Road ; ����
' - - l99.81'
Sou�f,• /iiie� Lof ,3,g ' - - - - - '
�/so iL'v. . Rev. Aud Srib. iYo 77
dh /.:.t. Oa/� C�«.i- Ad</. i'/�'f �.
r _� +�
".'i. =,*.:.!l.iC} j.�,.–'�j
�,�.�" ��.>�
: � , ,'' � '
-�•�� �;
`,:
ti �
� � .
�q
�
� � �
�
�w
1 '
,t i
� �, C
i f��
L'1 \ ;
l.� F
}i � ��:
f � �t' .
� `� �
� �
� ��
EBS�ir�ci�� �
Fci Uii����
,. --.�,_ �
o ,
:� o
_�_��;
'�' 2i6.0' --
,.-, .
'
�
V
�
�
E
��
I::er�t;; cer4ify ths� �l:is is a true ��d carre�t re�re�snta�ion of
4 s�:rvc;� of �_he_ �ot;ndaries of �hut part of ict 3v, Revisfd ::u;i`.er's j
��:_:i�vis��ri ?:?;:.hs: �7, Anol�:a Ccunty_, ::in;,esota .ly-ir.� East�rly of the 1 ,
cxwc :�i;:� '�'ortherlj cf iae Ea�t llne of Lct 4� rloc2: 1, Gs]: t;reek �
�Gl:1N�or. Flat 2, and '►Jest of a line drawn rlorth a� a rigrt ar_�le fro�t a point in
�:�c Iior�h l�:,e of said Oa� Creek Audition Flat 2, �dfs�snt 21�:.0 �'ee� West neasur
.•.i .saiu :lcrt.i liae fron it5 i .tc:rs�ction_ui�h ::+ie l,festerl; �ine of ��ist �iver .r'�,
�:s 4: �.._..::.c i� csi��rli�hed a:.ccr:iin� �c Lh� afuresai�i rec:,rc: pl:st c. '�al: C:�ek
n:i::li.3.v:'1 ��:t ;�� ,`,G:--E�triOT Wl�i.}1 8I'i e3:':C :ent for :iriv��Wa,j l:1;'L C;aeS CVj�i �!;e SUUtt'1
i,:. i i��c � cf sr�i�i Lc�t 3:;, ex+cndir,E T.:asterly fro� thc �3: t lirie cf abc•ve describ
�=�ct tc Lt:e i�s�t ?ine c° �sst F:i.ver Rcad, all sccorsiin� �o ti:e rc:,Fceti�e plats
t:erec: c:� CiIE an�.i cf reeord in t.��e offiee o:' the r.e£ister c� Deeds in ka3 fcr
e:eka ;o,:.;.ty:_�:i�nesc,ts; an� cl` ti;e locatior. cf all i;u�idinLs, i� �n� thereor., �.
����7.�-�risi;:le �r,creac�:.;.cr.ts, if anf, S:o� or on said lar.::. T7:i:. survey i� 1:.s�ic cn
_.. car.:e;,ticn ti,rlth a r.,crt�aoe lo�r. :�c�a '�ei.n�; F].:ica�: on the _.reFEr�;j r,.^�i no liabi
i� ��::�:_::: exccl:t io tt.c- hcic:er �� s:�ch r.ort�,a�e cr any ut•i,�r zr.terr.�t ac��ired
��.`:^ _•es: cn �g �u�i: raor±�a�e � It is iinderstood an�3 arre�d no ncrnuaent� l:ave bcen
::iac�� �cr ths F•�:z-}oso of ostsolishin let linc9 or '�c;u�c::iry corndx�s. As ,surLe•
-•• - - - - - �it �r -- - - - - -- �'
simi�ar request, previously approved � SITE PLAN
�
APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING, MAR�CH 13, 1996 PAGE 6
MOTION by Dr. Vos, by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #96-04� by Joe eitens (M. B. Properties) to reduced the front yard
setback from 100 feet to 35 feet t aliow the construction of a 32,500 square foot multi-
tenarrt industria! building on Lot 3, lodr2, Caba Realty First Addition, generaNy located
east of 8251 Main Street N.E., with following stipulatior�s:
1.
2.
The petitioner shall submit a
hydraulic calculations.
The petitioner shall submit a I
Industrial District, requirements.
grading and drainage pla� and the appropriate
plan complying with the M-2, Heavy
3. The petitioner shall execute and eco�d joint parki�g and driveway agreements
between the subject parcel and parcel to the west.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH AAS. SAVA E, MS. SMITH AND DR. VOS VOTING AYE
AND MR. KUECHLE VOTING NAY, C SON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council vvould
8.
2
BY JANET LEHRKE:
Per Section 205.04.05.6. of the Fridley City a
in the front yard in order to allow the cons c
shed in the front yard and to allow placem i
front yard on thai part of Lot 28, Revised Aud
of following described line: Beginning at a
feet westerly of southeast comer of said Lo
south line to north line of said Lot and thE
thereof; also exc�pt road; subject to easement
River Road N.E.
this request at their meeting on April
:, to allow two accessory strucc:tures
on of a 12 foot by 16 foot detached
of a 10 foot by 10 foot shed in the
's Subdivision No. 77, lying easterly
int on south line of said Lot 315.64
then north at right angle from said
3 terminating; except west 90 feet
� record, the same being 7136 East
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner was aware of the meeti but saw attendance as optio�al
and was not at the meeting. The petitioner has asked st to come out and discuss some
altematives. He asked that this item be oontinued to th next meeting on March 27.
3.
Per Section 205.07.01.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
setbadc from 27 feet to 15 feet to allow the oontinued existence of a scxeened porch
located under a dedc on Lot 1, Blodc 1, Walt Harrier First Addition, the same being
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
15.16
APPEALS COI�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 PAiGE '7
M TION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAlRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. -
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners were before the Appeals Commission at the last
meeting with a request to reduce the rear y setbadc for living space from 27 feet to 26
feet to correct an existing condition and to i ease the encxoachment of a dedc from 10
feet to 12 feet into the rear yard. At that time. aff did not have a� oppo�tunity to discuss
the scr'eened Porch which had been oonstructed as part o# the dedc. The petitioners chose
to oome badc through the p�-ocess asking for a reduction in the rear yard setbadc from 27
feet to 15 feet. The location of the request is 6496J98 Riverview Terrace which is at the
intersection of Riverview Terrace and Mississippi Way.
Ms. McPhersor� stated the petitioner submitted photos of the newly constructed dedc and
porch. In reviewing the request, staff looked at whether the City had granted similar
requests in the past. The City had granted two similar requests. The first is located on
Creek Park Lane�in which the varianoe request was to reduce the rear yard setback down
to 13.8 feet. In this situation, the rear yard of the subject parcel was adjacent to the side
yard of the house to the north. The circumstar�ces were significantly different i� that the
house had a screened porch that would not be visible from the adjacent neighbor. The
side wall of the adjacent house to the north had no wi�dows and, the�efo�e, there was no
visuai impacf.
Ms. McPherson stated the second similar request is located on Glen Creek Road. I� this
case, the dwelling was behind iwo other dwellings which fr,ait directly on Glen Creek Road
and there is a private access easement which allows these residents to exit onto Glen
Creek Road. In this request, the City granted a variance to reduce the rear yard setback
to 17 feet. The required setbadc is approximately 33 fee� Again, this is significantly
dif�erent in that the porch addition did not visually impact the adjacent properties. Glen
Creek is adjacent to the rear yard of the dwelling, and the properties to the north have
deep rear yards so the visual impact was mitigated by vegetation and distance.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the request is within the fww�o previousiy variances, staff
recommends denial of the request for the following reasons:
1. The petitioner can construct a detached, screen enclosed, gazebo withou#
a variance.
2. The previously g�anted variances had substantially different circumstances
(windowless side yard).
3. This request visually impacts the front yard of an adjacent property_
15.17
APPEALS CObIl�tISSION MEETING, MAR�CH 13, 1996 PAGE 8
Dr. Vos asked if there were properties to the west.
Ms. McPherson stated there are three properties to the wes�
Dr. Vos asked how many oi those properties can visually see this porch. _. -
Ms. McPherson stated ali three can see the porch.
Mr. Kuechle asked the size of the subject parcei.
Ms. McPherson stated the lot is 10,368 square feet The minimum size lot #or a dupiex is
10,000 square feet The minimum size for a residentiai lot is 9,000 square fee�.
Dr. Vos asked if any of the three property owners to the west had contacted the City.
Ms. McPherson stated, no.
Dr. Vos asked i# there was a drop in elevation.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes, there is a change in elevatio�.
Ms. Savage stated the petitioner oould oonstruct a gazebo without a variance. Is there any
restriction on the size or placemerrt of a gazebo?
Ms. McPherson stated the maximum size is 240 square feet and a gazebo can be placed
within three feet aF the lot line or the width of an easeme�t. She did not recall if there was
an easement on this property.
Dr. Vos asked if the porch was the same size as the deck.
Ms. McPherson stated, no. The porch is two feet shorter than the deck.
Ms. Jesperse� stated the property had a tiny dedc originally. This deck was construc�ed
when the house was c�nstnx�ed. The wood had rotted and fier son-i�-law volunteered
to rebuild the deck. They did not know they needed permits to replace the deck.
Ms. Savage stated the porch was too dose to the property line.
Ms. Jespe�sen stated that when they decided to replace the dedc, they considered that
iumber is 12 feet in length so that is the dimension they used.
Ms. Palmer stated they did not knowv the house was inoorrectly positioned on the 1ot. They
assumed it was carect when they purchased the property.
Ms. Smith asked if any of the neighbors had provided feedbadc.
� 15.18
APPEALS CCk�II�ZISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 PAiGE g
Ms. Jespersen stated the neighbors are very happY with it The other dec�c was very small.
This is in proportion to the house and it does look nice.
Ms. Jespersen stated the house behind theirs has a garage facing their house and one
window That house faoes the riv�er: That ne�hbor has been very suppa'tive_of what they
have done and has said they virould write a letter of support. All ttuee neighbors are very
supportive. All had spoken to th�n when the frst notice came out because they feit it
�ooked mudi better: The other' neighbors have made no c�mment at ail. No one else can
see it but the three neighbors. There are also shrubs and trees there so the porch is
screened.
Ms. Palmer stated she was rBadir�g the proje� summary which speaks about green space
and visual impac�. She thought a detadied gazebo close to the property line would have
a more visual impact than what they naw have. It is also in scale with the badc of the
house. They have finished the area with rodc arid landscaping. As far as green space,
because of the way the house is sitting, they have limited green spaoe. They have done
much enhanceme�t to the other areas of the property. They have planted grass in a
former parking area so they have improved the property from what it was before. The
neighbors are very happy with them. There are no more junk cars. The neighbors have
commerrted on how nice the property looks. They did not solicit the neighbors comments.
The neighbors came to them.
Ms. Smith asked if there was much slope from the house to the property line.
Ms. Palmer stated the badc yard slopes a lot to the badc of the lot. If they were to put up
a gazebo, it would be on a hill.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON. SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBUC HEARfNG CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle recommended approval of the reques�t. He realizes it was extendi�g where
they have bee� before; however, he believed a gazebo is not a particula�ly good
altemative. The lot is filled because o� a duplex on a 10,000+ square foot lot He thought
the visual impact of a scxeened porch where it is now would be less than if separately
located.
Ms. Smith agreed. The sloping has an impact on putting up a gazebo. While she is �ot
happy about doing something after it has been built, she thought the impact of tearing it
out was more destructive.
Or. Vos concuned.
15.�9
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE 10
Ms. Savage agreed. The public purpose is being served. This is an attractive addition
and the most sensitive way to have a porch.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recornmend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #96-06, by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer to reduce the rear yard
setback from 27 feet to 15 feet to allow the continued existence of a screened porch
located under a deck on Lot 1, B1odc 1, Walt Hanier First Addition, the same being
6496/98 Riverview Tercace N. E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this request at their meeting on April
8.
4. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS
�
Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council'actions.
; ,:
�_�
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjoum the meetin�.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, �HAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CA�2RIED AND THE MARCH-'13, 199f, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,. -
Gt�v�•�,�c,, �� l
Lavonn Coope� �
Recording Secretary
15.20
„r.,��,nir i ivi� llr 1cG(luL�:J1:
The petirioner requests that a variance be ganted to reduce the front yard setback from 100 fcet to 35
fcet for an industrial zoned prop�t,y a�oss the � from a residential district. If approved, the variance
would allow construction of a 32,500 square foot multi-tenant industrial building.
HARDSHIP:
See attached letter dated January 8, 1996.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Section 205.18,03.D.(4).(a). requires that a,n industrial building shall be no closer than 100 feet to the
right-of-way line of a street abutting a residential property.
Public Purpose seived by this requirement is to provide adequate open space azound industrial structures
for aesthetic and fire-fighting purposes and to protect and preserve the character of adjoining
neighborhoods by providing additional space for screening and buffering.
In 1987, the subject pazcel was granted the same variance as requested. The City Council established a
timeline of five years after approval for construction to begin. T'his timeline has expired. The variance,
if granted, would 'break" the setbacic line e�ablished by the property to the west addressed as 100 - 83rd
Avenue and the Moose Lodge located to the east. The petitioner can reduce the size of the building by
5,500 square feet to mee�t the 90 foot setback �f the variance is approved, the petitioner will be reyuired
to submit drainage and grading plans, a landscape plan, and to record joint parking and driveway
agreements where appropriate.
APPEALS COMNIISSION ACTION:
The Appeals Commission voted 41 to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
As this request was previously granted by the Appeals Commission and City Council, staff has no
recommendation regarding this request. If the City Council approves the request, staff recommends the
following stipulations:
16.01
... ........... . . . ._.. .. .. , ...,�.. ...,.,.,,,,.,, ....,.,�..�v.�,.,..:.i...�..... .>..�, .� . .:.: :.,..,�.,�� .. ,�.,� � n..>.���vs:�n:vtia.�a.ev.:a,v��w..�:v...tr.r.n. e....�. ,::.t .._ ,.. . ,.,., _ .. _.,. �
VAR #96-04
M-B Properties 83rd Avenue
Page 2 .
1. The petitioner shall submit a final gcading and drainage plan and the appropiiate hydraulic calculations.
2. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with the M 2, Heavy I�lusttial District requirements.
3. The petitioner shall execute and record jourt parldng and driveway a��rts be�lwwee�n the subject parcel and
the parcel to the west.
Petition For:
Location�
of Property:
Legal Description
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Eaisting
Vegetation:
Eaisting
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Site Planning
Issues:
PROJECT DETAILS
A variance to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 35 feet
160 - 83rd Avenue N.E. (approximate)
Lot 3, Block 2, Caba. Realty First Addition
225 feet x 395 feet; 88,875 square feet; 2.04 acres
Flat, with stockpiled dirt
Little or none; scrub vegetation
M-2, Heavy Industrial; Caba Reahy First Addition; 1980
83rd Avenue
83rd Avenue
N/A
Meet drainage requirements
16.02
VAR #96-04
M-B Properties 83rd Avenue
Page 3
DEVEIAPMENT STTE
�
The pe�tioner requests that a variance be granted to re�uce the frotrt yard setbacic fram 100 feet to 35 f�eet for an
indus�ial properiy bcated across the street from a resideatial distrid. The petitioner proposes to c�nsauct a 32,500
square foot multi-tenant industrial building if the variance is approved.
Property Description/Histo�
In 1987, the petitioner submitted a varia�e request for the following:
1. To reduce the frorrt yard setback from 100 feet to 90 fcet for an uidustrial property located acxoss the �
from a residerrtial prope,rty. This request is for the property addreSSed as 100 - 83rd Avenue N.E.
2. To reduce the frocrt yard setback from 100 fee� to 35 feex for an industrial property loc,ated acxoss the street
from a residential district. (Tlus variance was for the property tentativeiy addressed as 160 - 83rd Avenue
which is the subject parcel.)
At the time the variances were requested, the p�itioner was ProPo�B a thrce phase multi-tenant developmerrt. In
1987, phase oney an 80 ft. by 210 ft. multi tenant industrial building was constcuc�ed at 8251 Main Street. In 1989,
phase two, an 80 ft. by 260 ft. multi-tenant industrial building, was at 100 - 83rd Av�nze..
The petitionet's variances as descdbed above were approved by the Appeal Comcnission and City Coutx� (mi�utes
attached). Typically, the zoning code allows a one-year time paiod for consauction to occur prior to the eacpiration
of a va�iance. �n the petitiona's cas� the City gc�rrted a fiva-y+ear construdion pe�iod as part of the vatiance approval
in 1987. Since the five years have elapsed, the pehtioner has reapplied for the same variance requested
Anal�
Section 205.18.03.D.(4).(a). requires that an industrial building shall be no closer than 100 feet to the prope�ty line
abutting a residential property.
Public Purpose served by this r�� is to provide adequate op� �ace around indust�ial structures for a�ic
and fire-fighting purposes and to protect a� prese�ve the character of adjoining n�ghborhoods.
The p� is proposing to oon�iuc� a 32,500 squane fna� ��rt icdus�ial bu�ding with a typical M 2, Heavy
Industiial, 35 foot front yard setback As the propaty is located across from a reside�rtial district, the code requires
a setbacic of 100 feet to atlow for addirional screening and. � The zoninng was changed in 1987. By reviewing
the aerinall photograph, it is noted that the building at 100 - 83rd Ave,nue and the Moose Lodge located at 8298
16.03
VAR #96-�
M B Properties 83rd Avenue
Page 4
Umversity Av�e are bo�th loc�ted at approximately the same setback from 83rd Avenue (90 feet). By granting the
varianoe� this established building line would be "broke,n" by the petitione�'s proposed building. In order to mee� the
90 foot setback as established by the two adjacent buildings, the petitioner would ne�d to re�iuce the size of the
building by 5,500 square feet. 'The petitioner has indicated in his hardship letter that reducing the size of the building
would be uneconomical. The state statute does not consider economics as a hardship wh� coasidering variances:
The proposed plan does not require any other �rariances to the requirements in the M 2 zoning district.
The p�itioner w�l :be required to submit a landscape plan and to record joint parking and driveway easements between
the subject parc�el and the parcd to the west. Similar agreanents were t�ecorded bexween 100 - 83rd Avenue and 8251
Main Street.
Recommendation
Given the history of the parcel and the previous variance granted by the Appeals Commission and City Counal, staff
has no recommendation regarding this request. If the City Council approves the request, staff recommends the
following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit a final grading and drainage plan and the appropriate hydraulic calculations.
2. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with the M-2, Heavy Industrial District requirements.
3. The petitioner shall execute and record joim parldng and driveway agreements between the subject parcel and
the pazcel to the west.
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commisson voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. Commissioner
Kuechle, dissenting opinion, felt that the petitioner had not pwsued the alternatives or could re�luce the building to
meet the requirements.
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
AD7ACENT STTES
Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Ceirter
Zoning: C-2, General Busine.ss
Zoning: R 3, General Multiple Farrrily
16.04 .
Land Use: Multi-tenant Industrial
Land Use: Vacant
Land Use: Moose Lodge, vacant land
Land Use: Residential
v�x �-oa
M-B Properties 83rd Avenue
Page 5
Comprehensive
Planning �ssues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
The Zoning and Compreh�sive Plan are consistent is this locatioa
No one in the audience spoke regarding the issue.
� s.o5
VAR 4�96-04
N
�
VAR #96-04
0�251 Main Street
16.
LOCATI�N MAP
i
i ; �� F
:1:�::� � �
, .� �
,,
� , �-� ^
o` I � � �
;.
.�
�;
i �t
:;� ��,_
:� .4
�r
�
�
�
�/��1.�'-��--�°-'/Y�E�; ..�
._� _ .�.__. _ ��. . .
_ _____. _ �
u
1
VAR ��96-04
Joe Maertens '
_ _ _ �\\,
• � �i
'� �
�_ 1 !
�� � � ,,
� }- -- i�
t- �
� i.
� �� •a �'
v , �� . , �
, �� � , �o _ � �1
� ` i . R�h. :., , _.
I ' ' - - - - - - . -- _ �:
a i r � ; � � '`� ;:
r � ' �� +
: � . �- � ' i � : � ; � i'
� :.� N f� � � \ � � � i � ` -- { .
e � s a - � � �� � : � � --, ;
7 •t---- - 'N . ; � ` •� yI ,�
.I' ` ' N` _ ^ _''� .
�.-- i ' `i o p � °
' �_ —� - - - - I �;' � ' � i �
r--- ► ; � �---
, ---� � l � � ! / '
I - �� � � - : �r
�f� __.� �
� ,: , _� �
� ,�. . . � , , i : �
,
; � � ,�
`._�. ' '-1. -�- +-_--�- �- " I � �`_ `
" . � I
_ I � -- ( �f
± < i i ' _ � .���?''_� - - . -_ _. � '._--� �—=-
C ' ^ �
v �'
. r rt / �� � n '/
�-. ;; ♦ \_. .._ - - ----__z �-*-- ---. /
1� ' � �
' "-� ' — ---- v — — ` —�� — --- —
t - -M--Y� -Y-� yF�-� ��
�� M
., � � ,
�
_ ,;
� t Lo�7J�a. /��lA �pADan'i /i�fA '
µ ' -= ( �
Ir t i ,
� � 7r. A.:d � �. ���� ` i
� � �
� I
� ; ,��x.�� FROM R•aMl. �ap 3�' �
i . Ndut1Y• Rkh. 'I
� � ! , � ��
;� / � I
� � _ ---- :"':=- ".:+ �_ ._ - - — �.,r.a..
�
,, . ,� ; � , � I i �
I �� 1 I _
( � PFAt,.v6 tor
`-�i�I I� � II I I'I1 �i i�`
, II(I ! IIII 1 I i
._ _ _ -,s.-o8 - - - ^
. � _�
SITE PLAN
�
�
M.B. PROPERTIES
8251 Main Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55432
(612) 786-4779
February 8, 1996
Attn: Ms. Michele McPherson
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
RE: SETBACK VARIANCE
LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CABA REALTY ADDITION
PIN #4023024230008
Dear Ms. McPherson:
As you are aware, M. B. Properties applied for a variance on the set back requirements for the above lot and
the adjacent Lot 4 in 1987.
Variances were granted for a period of five years covering Lots 3& 4. The building on Lot 4 was
constructed. The building for Lot 3 was delayed due to the prolonged real estate slump.
The reason that the variance was, and is, being requested is that the parcel immediately north of us
(Springbrook Apartments) was rezoned from industrial to residential.
The rezoning thus imposed a 100' setback instead of the 35' setback required when the apartment site was
zoned industrial.
We propose to construct an office/warehouse building suitable for multiple tenants. This type of building
requires a building with access to the building front for office visitors and access to the building rear for
service and delivery vehicles. These requirements thus necessitate a rather narrow building relative to its
lena h.
Failure to obtain the variance would reduce the building by approximately 6500 SF inaking the building
uneconomical for the lot size.
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call.
S' ly,
i.. .
os ph D. Maertens
JDM:Iw/variance.jdm 1 s.�9
CO(St;CIL I�':'ETI27G OF JUNE 15, t987
t'k�. Qureshi asked if the setback requirements are neet on the side of th
develo}.�nent abutting Raffaele's. Mr. Robertson stated that �etbacks are t
on this particular side of ''the development.
Mr. Qureshi questioned if provisions were made for drainage. rSr. aertens
state� ther�e are three different drainage ponds proposed, on for each
Fk.ase. He stated the pond for Phase 1 Would be located est of the
buil di ng.
MOTION by Councilman Goodspeed to grant speci2l use perm , SP #87-05, With
the stipulations as folloWS: (1) petitioner apply f r building setback
variance fron 83rd Avenue and process concurrently x special use permit;
(2) provide ar.d record a joint driveway easement tt,een lots 3, 4 and 5
prior to first bvilding permit; (3) provide impro ed facade plans for staff
2pprov2l - end elevation materials should e consistent with front
elevation. All loading doors and man doors loading area to be painted to
soften visual appearance, utility meters t toally screened from public
vieW; (4) provide screening for loading ors on Phase 1 building through
installation of a berm With shrubbery the open area along 83rd Avenue
with Phase 1 construetion (plan to be approved Dy staff); (5) mound of fill
2djac�nt to 83rd Avenue to be resh d and loWered prior to occupancy of
Phase 1 building; (6) provide a corative masonry screening Wall at the
northWest corner of building t ree to screen loading doors; (7) provide
eight foot high opaque scr ning fence around storage area in Phase 1
construction With vines pl ted around peri�eter; (8) developer to gupply to
City tenant type and buil ing area calculations prior to each occupancy to
monitor usage and par � g supply. Oecupancy not to exceed parking supply;
{9) all green areas t have automatie underground sprinkling; (10) all shrub
beds to be edged a mulched With rock over a weed harrier; (11) landscape
plan to be refine to include: (a) tWO techny arborvitae hedges, planted
three feet on nter, located on the north and south of the loading area
drive off t�'a Street; (b) plantings for the sreen area east of building
tWO; and ( street tree s, 40 fee t on ce nte r, al ong l,ai n S tree t; (12 ) a
conprehe ive sign plan to be provided prfor to applying for individua7. sign
permit , and (13) material samples of all facade materials to be submitted
for aff approval prior to construction permitting. Seconded by Councilman
Fi patrick. Upon a voice vote, all votfng aye, Mayor 27ee deelared the
tion carried unanimously.
i 0. ITEhS FROM THE APPEALS CQr4rlISSION MEETING OF MAY 26, 1987 =
A. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS, VAR #87-17,A'TO DECREASE
THE SEIBACK FROM A STREET iiIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ABUTTING A
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FROM 100 FEET TO 35 FEET, AND TO
DECREASE TF� SETBACK FROM A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. ABUTTING
A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FROM 100 TO 90 FEET, CABA REALTY
FIRST ADDZTION, ALL GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 83RD AVENUE
Ah'D WEST OF IJNNERSITY AVENUE N.E., BY M-B PROPERTIES:
Mr. Robertson, Comiaunity Development Director, stated these are requests
for variances to decrease the �etback from a street ri�t-of-Way line from
100 to 90 feet and from 100 to 35 feet to alle� the construction of
-10-
16.10
�
_ • _ .
COUNCIL t��ETING OF JUNE 15, 1987
� Warehouse/office buildings. He stated normally a variance is granted for
orye year, hocrever� because this is a phased development, t3ie petitioner is
requestfng the variance extend for a five year period. Mr. Robertson
stated the hardship cited was that a 100 foot setback oa 83rd Was imposed
when the City recently rezoned the land to residential north of 83rd.
Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commisson at their May 26 meeting
recommended approval of the variances. .--
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated it 9eems fairly heavy screenin� is required
alons the north edge in anticipation of the effect on adjacent residential
prope r ty .
!��-. Qureshi, Ciiy Manager, stated Raffaele•s Restaurant is set back quite
far and this proposed building t�ould be closer to the street. He felt
there could be a smaller building in order to redufle the variance request.
t�ayor Nee asked xhat setback �tould be required ff the City had not rezoned
for the apartment complex. Mr. Robertson stated it would be 35 feet.
Mr. Qureshi stated he didn't have a problem �ith Phase I, but could not
anticipate xhat Would happea in the future. He stated, normally, variances
expire in one year.
tM. Herrick, City Attorney, stated it seems to make sense to treat these
buildings separately since they xill be constructed in phases. He stated
�� - as development oceurs, there may be a different feeling as to hoW �he
Council Wishes the property to develop.
Mr. Maertens stated they are looking at a 1 ong range pl an for the total
garcel. He stated if they cannot build a certain amount of square feet,
they probably Kon�t build at all. He stated no variance is needed for the
first phase, but he Nanted to knoW tahat can be built in the future. He
stated �ahen the adjacent property was rezoned, one of the stipulations was
it not impact on the industrial property in the area.
2tayor Nee stated he did not recall this being part of the atipulations for
the rezoning. 2�^. Herrick also stated he had no recollection of this being
one of the stipulations and if it becomes an issue, it xould have to be
checked.
Councilman Schr_eider stated he felt there xas a hardship created by the
Cityts rezoning for the apartment complex. He stated if that property had
not been rezoned, Mr. Maertens Would be able to build according to his
proposed plans.
Council�+aman Jorgenson stated she believed Mr. Maertens statement xas
correct and when the City rezoned the property for the apartment complex,
it xasn• t to interfere �itii other uses.
Councilman Goodapeed stated he would have no problem granting the variance
if the entire construction Kere to occur at this time. He thought perhaps.
-11-
16.11
, , ,. _ . ,.
COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1987
the variance could be granted for t�ro years.
Mr. 1��ertens sLated if the variance xas granted for only tWO years, they
uould be penalized for not being able to construet all three buildings at
one time. i?e stated he k-nows the third buildfng Wouldn•t be cons�ructed in
two years, possibly not in five years.
MOTION by Couneilman Goodspeed to grant the v�rlanee requests, VAR �87-17,
for a five year period taking into consideration the hardship fmposed on
this property �.�en the Council rezoned property for the apartment complex.
Seconded by Councilman Fit�patrick. Upon a voice vote, all votfng aye,
b:ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
B. COP]SIDERATION OF A VARIANCE R�QUEST, VAR �87-18, TO REDUCE
THE HEQt1IRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET ON LOT 2,
BLOCK 2, SYLV AN HILLS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6251 RAINBOW
DRNE N.E., BY RICHARD AND JAYNE FRANTA:
l�. Robertson, Community Development Direetor, stated this is a r uest to
reduce the side yard setback from 10 to 5 feet at 6251 Rainb Drive in
order to allaw an addition to an existing home. He stated t petitioner
reviexed several alternatives and felt this proposal be served their
needs.
1�"r. Robertson stated the Appeals Coamission revie d this request and
recoc►mended approval With two stipulations Which he outlired.
r'�s. Franta stated she and her husband have dis ssed the proposed addition
and are eonsidering another alternative. Sh sLated they are concerned
xhether the house is "legal" because of o the five feet from the lot
line in the rear of the property.
1��. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he house is already exi�ting and
grandfathered in so there is no le problem With selling the house.
l�rs. Franta stated sinee th
Council did not have to take
C. COt� IDE RATION OF A V A AN
REAR YARD SETBACK F M 25
RZCE CREEK ESTATE SECOND
COURT N.E.. BY NNY RILE
are considerir.g al ternative pl ans, the
on on this vari�nce request.
v AR �a7—� 9 L z
FEET ON LOT 2
'HE SAI� BEING
t�. Robertson, camunity Llevelopment Director, stated this is a request to
reduee the r ar yard setback from 25 to 1u feet to bring an already
existing th e�eason porch into a legal conforming use. I?e stated the
person Wh built this porch did not obtain a building permit and has since
passed •ay. He stated the property has been so2d and the previous oWner
or ne o+rner Were not aware that this property Was not in compl ianee xith
the code .
. Robertson stated a neigiibor, Mr. and Mrs. Resch, called and stated
_� 2_
16.12
� r �
� �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COPi11ISSI01� PIEETIf�G, t9AY 26, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson 13etzold called the tlay 26, 1987, Appeals Conmissio eeting to order
at 7:32 p.�.
ROLL CALL:
i4eribers Present: Donald 6etzoid, Alex 8arna, Jerr here�;, Diane Savage,
Kenneth Vos
Menbers Absent: i�one
Otliers Presenf Darrel Clark, City of ridley
Joe P9aertens , 144 ' er Edge Way
Richard & Jaqne F nta, 6251 Rainbow Or. PJ.E.
Tom & Jenny Ri , 2501 - 13th Terrace t�.11. , 1�ew Bri gliton
Pat & t�1i ke S i e, i 53i Woods i de Court
Willard & rna Bolling, 6241 Rainbow Or. N.E.
Richard rris, 6200 Riverview Terrace
Jim S rison, Belt Line Construction
Gen 0�•lczarcak, Elo Cngineering
APPROVAL OF t1AYii'Z, 1987, APPEALS COt1t1iSSI0fd t1It�llTf_S:
T—
MOTIOtJ by 11r. 6arna, seconded by h1r. Sherel:, to approve the P1ay 72, 1937,
Appeals C. nission minutes with the folloti��ing amendr�ent under tler�bers Present:
"Sue SI� ek" should be changed to "Jerry Sherek".
Gl'�A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTIf�G AYE, CNAIRPERSO�� BETZOLD DECLARED THE h10TIU��
RIED UNAWIMOUSLY.
l. COl�SIUERATIOW OF VARIAt�CE REQUESi'S, VAR #87-17, BY ��-8 PROPER7IES, PU
TO CHAPTER 205.18.3, D, 4a, OF THE FftiDLEY CITY C4DE TO QEC_REASE TNE
FR(l�d A CTREFT RT(;NT_(1F_t,IAY I TP�E_ ARIiTTitdG A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. FRO
�
VCNUE A(�D WEST OF UtJIVER�I Y AVE��UE N.E., FRIOLEY, t•1It�t�ESOTA, 55432.
MOTIOi� by t1s. Savage, seconded by Or. Vos, to open the pubiic hearing.
Upon a voice vote, al� voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public
hearing open at 7:34 p.m.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
16.13
-� ■
APPEALS COt4MISSIOP� PIEETItiG, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 2
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPOR7 �
SOUTH OF 83RD AVENUE At�D WEST OF Ut�IVERISTY AVENUE N.E.
VAR #87-17 � ..
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED 43Y REQIfIREF1ENT:
Section 205.18.3, D, 4a, requires that whenever any industrial district
is adjacent to a residential district, permitted buildings and uses �
shall not be less closer to a street right-of-v�ay iine than 100 feet.
The public purpose served by this requirement is to avoici congestion in
the public street, traffic hazards, and other dangers, and to protect
and conserve the character of any adjoining neighborhoo�s and fut��re
neighborhoods in the same vicinity.
8. STATED NARDSHIP:
"A 100 foot setback on 33rd was imposed when the land north of 83rd was
rezoned residential."
C. Recently the City Council rezoned a 21-acre site, north of 83rd and
east of the Nature Center, fror� M-2, heavy industria7, to R-3, multiple
fanily dwellings. This change created a need for a 700 foot setback
fror� 83rd for the nov� proposed t4-2 buildings to the south of 83rd.
The proposal by t9-B Properti.es includes three officelwarehouse buildings
of brick and b7ock wiih extensive landscapinq and loading door screening
walls. Due to the quality of considerations of the office/warehouse
proposal, the setback variances should not pose a probler� for the apart-
ment complex.
Staff is working out specific ]a�idscapinq and screening plans along with
t�ie pendi ng Speci al ll�e Permi t appl i cati on.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner iniended to build three buildings in three
phases on.the three lots. The tirne schedule proposed ���as for Phase I building
this summer, Phase II building wouid depend upon the occupancy rate of Phase I
within 3-5 years from now, and Phase III.building viould begin arhen Phase I and
Phase II were completed. Ne stated landscaping ��as bE�ing addressed with the
Planning Depart�ent, and the perimeter a�ould be heavily iandscaped so that the
apartment complex would�probab7y not be able to see much of the congestion
created by the industriai buildings.
Mr. Clark stated there was a speciai use permit before the Planning Co�ission
on P1ay 20 for the use of office/warehouse in all three buildings. This was
approved by the P7anning Commission.
tds. Savage stated that in the Administrative Staff Report, it $tated: "pue
to the quality of considerations of�the office/warehouse proposal, the setbacf:
variances should not pose a prablem for the apartment complex." tJhat did that
mean?
��s. ��
�
APPPALS COiit•1ISSION MEETIWG, F1AY 26, ]9$7 PAGE 3
t4r. Clark stated he did not vrrite that, but he thought it meant that the
architectural exterior of the buildings were such that it did not ]ook like
a plai►i o1d v�arehouse. The buildings aiould be well constructed brick build-
i�gs with a lvw profile.
Mr. Qob tlaertens stated he did purchase the land before the property across
the street was rezoned. These were reiatively small lots, about 200 ft.
deep , and 100 ft. setbacks on Phase I and Phase II would cause a severe loss
of property. As he understood it, a 100 ft. setback a�as intended on Main St. when
industrial was across fron residential; but in this case, the apartment
complex was cor.�ing into an already zoned industrial area, and he did not
tiiink the 100 ft. setback was appropriate in this case.
t4r. Clark stated Phase II and Phase III would not be done in the first year,
and variances usually expire after one year, at which time the petitioner
has to come in for a renewal. Since the petitioner was pretty sure that
Pi�ase II would t�e wittiin 3-5 years and Phase III after that, he would recommend
that if the Appeals Commission reco�mends approval of the variances that they
also recor�mend that the variances be approved for a period of tir►e years, and
then at the end of five years, if the buildings are not finished, the petitioner
would have to con�e back to tf�e City for a renewal.
t4r. [laertens stated he realized that variances expire after one year, and
that was fine if the City decided to extend those variances. He just wanted
the City to go on record that it had no objections to this development.
h1r. Qetzold asked Mr. Maertens to briefly describe his developr�ent plans.
Mr. P•laertens stated that rather than call it office/warehouse space, they
prefer to ca',l it office service space, because he thought the �odern office!
warehouse building space was designed differently than, �or example, most of
the buildings presently along P1ain Street. Architecturally speakinq, there
were sone pretty coarse-looki�g buildings along there. liis buildings were
more along the lines of the East River Road Business Center, more attractive,
higher quality buildings. _
�1r. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverviea� Terrace, stated he owned Block 7, Onaway,
and Slock 5, East Ranch Estates. He stated again this was another business
center in an industrial zoning, and he had expressed his objections to that
at the May 20th Planning Commissifln r�eeting, in that the City was circur�venting
the zoning code with special use permits and "sleight of hand".
Mr. Harris asked if this property was in the tax increment district.
t�lr. t�taertens stated it was not, and he was not receiving any public financing.
t1r. Harris stated he thought P1r. t�laertens had a valid point, that the City
should have taken his property into consideration when the rezoned the 22
acres to the north of it residential. He stated t�lr. Maertens should not have
even had to apply for variances.
16.15
c
APPEALS COP1!•1ISSIOf� TIFETING, MAY Zb, 1987 ' ' PAGE 4
Mr. Barna stated he agreed.- Ne thought Mr. Maertens' property and the
property to the east had been taken �nto consideration before ihat�rezoning
took place. He knew it was addressed in.discussions at the Appeais Commissio�'
�` meeting. _
t�IQTIQt� by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to ciose the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, a17 voting aye, Ch�irperson 8etzold declared the pub7ic
hearing closed at 7:49 p.m.
P•ir. Barna stated that he had made the assumption that when the Appea7s
Commission approved the variances for the apartr�ent comp7ex that the indusiria1
zoned property and the general business Zoned properties already in existence
would not be affected with the normal setbacks be�ng increased. So, he was
extreme7y surprised to see this cane before the Appeais Cor+�nission. Personally,
he feli that the mni�g was after the fact. The City knew this property�would
be developed either industria7 or corurercia7 before the apartment complex
rezoning went through. This property should not be penalized for a change in
a zoning in the area.
Mr. Sherek stated he agreed. The administratively imposed hardship was
obvious. He wouid be in favor of recorm�ending approval of the variances.
Ms. Savage aiso agreed.
Mr. 6etzo]d stated that.as pointed out by Mr. Barna, it was fairly obvious
there was a hardship. 7he intent of the code was being r�et by the heavy
� iandscaping to screen the two areas. He siated it looked like a good project.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Dr. Vos, to reco�mend to City Council
ap�roval of variance requests, VAR �87-i7, by M-B Properties, v�ith-the
recommendation that due io the scheduling of development that the variances
be extended for a period of five years.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye; Chairperson Betzold declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. 8etzold stated this item wou7d go to City Council on June 15.
2. CONSIDERA7ION OF VARiANCE RE EST, VAR #87-18 BY R ANO JAYt�E fRAt�TA,
PURSUAt�T TO CHAPTER 205.07.D, 2a, OF THE FRID ITY CODE i'a REDt10E zHE
�
I01�
- --- ----- -- � •�
MOTION by P1r. Barna, s ded by t1r. Sherek, to open the publ i c heari ng.
ilpon a voice vo , all voting-aye;`Chaarperson 8etzold declared the public
hearing ope 7:51 p.m. _, .
Chai�rson Betzold read the Admin9strative Staff Report:
� 16L16
, _ .r•�
CITY OF FRtOLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996
ROLL CALL: �'
Chairperson Savage cailed the March 13, 1996, Appeals Commission meetir�g to order
at 7:30 p.m. �' � �
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Ken�Vos, Cathy Smith
Members Absent: Carol Beaulieu
�'
Others Present: Soott Hidcok, Planni� Coordinator
Michele McPhersori. Planning Assistant
Joe Maertens, 44 River Edge Way
Janet Pal , 6498 Riverview Terrace
Corinne persen. 6496 Riverview Terrace
Ken �lgarde, 7841 Wayzata Boutevard
MOTION by Kuechle, seoonded by Dr. Vos, to approve the February 14, 1996,
Appeals Co mission minutes as written.
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
CARRIED UNANIMOUSIY.
Per Section 205.18.03.D.(4).(a). of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard
setback ftom 100 feet to 35 fieet to allow the c�nstruction of a 32,500 square foot
multi tenant i�dustrial building � Lot 3, Blodc 2, Caba Realty First Addition,
generally located east of 8251 Main Street N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vas, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is to reduce the required front yard setbadc from 100
feet to 35 feet for an industrial zoried property which is located across the street from a
residential distric�. The parcel is located adjacent to 83rd Avenue, west of University and
east of Main Street. Staff has addressed this parcel as 160 - 83rd Avenue.
16.17
APPEALS COI�TISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 pAGE 2
Ms. McPherson stated the subjeci paroel is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and has been
zoned in this manner since the City was incorporated. In 1987, prior to the development
of the three paroels which are awned by the petitiaier, the City rezoned the parcel directly
north from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. In i987, the
petitioner came before the City Council with this site plan which showed a three-phase
development proposal fa� three multi�e�arrt ir�dustrial buildings. At that time, the petitioner
requested a variance to reduce the 100�oot required setbadc to 90 feet for the first
building and from 100 feet to 35 feet for the second building.
Ms. NlcPherson stated that the Appeals Commission and the City Council recommended
approyal of the varianoe in 1987 as requested by the petitioner. In addition to granting the
variance, the City Council also extended the one-year time period for construction to five
years to allow the pe#itioner additional time as the market changed and fluctuated. The
first building addressed as 8251 Main Street was constructed in 1987. The second
building addressed as 1� - 83rd Avenue was constructed in 1989. The five-year time
frame established by the City Council has elapsed and, therefore, the petitioner is again
before the City requesting the same variance.
Ms. McPherson stated staff, in reviewing the request, looked at the adjacent buildings to
determine the impact this would have on the setbadcs currently established by the building
at 100 - 83rd Avenue, as well as the Moose Lodge located on the University Avenue
service road. Both buildings have approximately a 90 foot setback from the right-of-way
line along 83rd Avenue. Granting the variance to 35 feet would allow the encroachment
of the proposed building past that setbadc line by approximately 55 feet. The petitioner's
proposal does not require any other variances in teRns of setbacks or lot coverage. In
order to meet the 90 foot setback as established by the two adjacent buildings, the
petitianer would need to reduce the size of the building by approximately 5,500 square
feet. The petitioner has i�dicated that reducing the size of the building would be
uneconomical. State statutes do not consic�r eoonomics solely as a hardship for granting
variances. The petitioner will be required to submit a landscape plan and to record
parking and driveway agreements between the existi�g buildings and the adjacent
neighbor. Similar agreements have been recorded between the two buildings already
established by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated that given the history of the parcel and the previous variance which
was granted by the Appeals Commission and City Council, staff has no recommenda#ion
regarding the request tf the Appeals Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff
recommends the following stipulations:
The petitioner shaU submit a fi�al gradi�g and drainage plan and the
appropriate hydraulic caJculations.
2. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with the M 2, Heavy
Ir�dustrial District, requirements.
16.18
APPEALS CO�IlKISSION MEETZNG, MAR�CH 13, 1996 PAiGE 3
3• The petitioner shaN execute and rec�d joint parking and driveway
agreements between the subjecc� parcel and the parcel to the west.
Mr. Kuechle asked if Uae proposed struchue rneets the parlci�g requiremeMs.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes. Staff has reviewed the petitione�'s submission and it does
meet all � requirernents of the M-2, HeOVy Industrial zoning distric:t, with the exception
of the varianoe being requested.
Dr. Vos asked if the �-operty to the north was rezoned fran M-2 to R-3 in 1987.
Ms. McPherson stateci, yes, this was carect.
Dr. Vos asked that if the property to the north had remained M 2, would the setbadc
requirement be 35 feet?
Ms. McPherson stated, yes.
Ms. Savage asked if just the third building in the plan is to be built.
Ms. McPherson stated� yes. The petitioner submitted the same site plan as submitted in
1987.
Ms. Savage asked if there was any differenoe in the situatiai now than in 1987 when the
request was first approved.
Ms. McPherson stated �at with the exception � the five-ye� time period that elapsed, the
facts are the same. The zoning acxoss the street is still R-3. The adjacent property is still
oommercial. The only substantial change in this area was the rezonir�g approval and plat
approval for the construc#ion of the Wal-Mart store.
Ms. Smith asked where the zoning was R 3.
Ms. McPherson stated the R-3 zaning was to the north where the Springbrook Apartment
buildings are located.
Mr. Maertens stated the rates fran the 1987 meetings explai� everything. He bought the
property when the property across the street was zoned industrial. It was his
understanding that when the pa�cel acxoss the street vwas zoned R-3, it was with the
understa�ding there would not be an impact ai the adjacer�t ir�ustriat properties. He
thought it would be very unfair to be t�eld to the 100 foot setbadc imposed through no fault
of theirs, but done as a favor to them. He th�ght the buildings on the site were high
quality industrial. These are perhaps bett� th�an some in that area. Construc:tion wiil be
done without special assistance.
16.19
APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE 4
Dr. Vos asked if the existing buildings on the site were set east arid west and if the new
building would be set north and south because of the configuration of the lot
Mr. Maertens stated he tho� this would properiy describe the property. The 8251 Main
Street building faoes south and the 100 - 83rd Avenue building faces north. This buiiding
w�ouid face east. The !ot is long and narroMr and this type of spaoe lends itself t6 high tech
space and to smail tenants.
Dr. Vos asked if the proposed building would be within the required lo# coverage.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed plan meets all the other setbadcs. The lot coverage
is approximately 35°� with 40% being the maximum.
Ms. Savage asked why this was not completed within the five-year time frame.
Mr. Maertens stated that in 1987, he did not think they would be able to build this building
in that time. The�e was not much o# this type of development done between 1989 and
1995. It is just naw that there is more building of this type of space. Also, during #ha# time,
there were not many lenders willing to lend.
Mr. Kuechle suggested the petitioner extend the curren# buildi�gs across the lot.
Mr. Maertens stated he did not think that would be a usable solution. They have outdoor
storage there for his construction business. Extending the buildings wroutd mean they
would have to give that up and it would disnapt that operation.
Dr. Vos stated it appeared that extending the buildings would also create tr�c flow
problems and the petitioner would not get the square footage.
Mr. Maertens stated the minutes from 1987 tell ihe sfory. He appreciated the
consideration.
Mr. Belgarde stated he was one of the owners of the Springbrook Apartments: !n terms
of having the building oonstrucc�ed north/south, the petitioner is exposing the tnx;k and
trash areas to the front He knows a little about the buildi�gs the petitioner is going to put
there. They developed the East River Road Business Center. Mr. Belgarde stated he
drove by the petitioners other buildings and t�ash is tough on those buildings. People
store things in the rear and store trash in #he rear which blows out. If you go by there, very
likely that is what you would see on that side of the building. If this building goes in, he
would like to see a heavy screen along the 83rd Avenue boulevard. It would help even
more if the c�u�b cut were moved w�est in order to do a 100°�6 sci-eening i� that area so one
would �ot be tooking down on a potential problem. That is his only concem.
Ms. Savage asked if Mr. Belgarde was opposed to the request.
16.20
APPEALS COLrIIrIISSION MEETING, MARiCH 13, 1996 pAGE 5
Mr. Belgarde stated he was not opposed to the request. The petitioner's buildir�s are
nicely done. However� if nothing is done about screening, he would be opposed to the
�equest. The proposal is moving the overhead doors, the trash and storage area 55 feet
closer to the fro�t of his property,
Mr. Maertens stated he would not agree that the building is trashy. The ice and snow is
now melting so the debris is exposed. He is proud of how they keep the premises free of
trash. Also, screenir�g is part of the landscape plan. There is a fairly good dis#ance,
approximately 50 feet, that will have heavy plantings to effectively screen that area. It is
�ot a major service area, These are service businesses which usually have vans a�d
trucks coming in. The service area will be to the west which is the rear of the building.
They have decided to put the service doors on that side of the building to keep the front
cleaner.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seoonded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOT10N CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated he did not see that the conditions had changed from nine years ago. He
would still vote in #avor of the variance request. He believed the hardship was the
rezoning across the street. This was a c�r�cem about the impact of this area at the time
of the rezoning, and he did not feel the petitioner should suffer because of rezoning
especially when the property was purchased prior to the fact. He believed the scxeening
was a concem but he was not sure that landscaping was the only so{ution. The stipulation
for the landscape plan would make sure there is adequate screening. He was not an
expe�t to recommend changing the curb cuts. He would be satisfied with the landscape
plan.
Ms. Savage stated she was at the first meeting for this request. She agreed with Dr. Vos.
There is no change in the request. She approved the request at that time and would also
be in favor of the request.
Mr. Kuechle disagreed. He thought the building sticks out too far. The setbadcs for the
other buildings are at 90 feet. To bring this out would not look right He realized there
were some mitigating circumstances in the fact that the zoning was changed after the lot
was purchased. He did not think a{tematives have been completeiy exptored. They could
look at another placeme�t of the building or extending the e�usting buildings across the lot.
The storage could be moved. He did not see the storage area as a hardship..
Ms. Smith stated she would vote in favor of the request. The owner purchased the
property prior to the changes in zor�ing. If this property had changed owners since then,
she would not be as sympathetic.
is.2�
APPEALS COI�tISSION MEETING, MARCH 13, 1996 p� 6
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approvai of Variance
Request, VAR #96-04, by Joe Maertens (M. B. Propertiesj to reduced the front yard
setback from 1� feet to 35 feet to a1low the co�struction of a 32.500 square foot multi-
tenant industrial building on Lot 3, Blodc 2, Caba Realty First Addition, generally la;ated
east of 8251 Main Street N.E., with the foUoHring stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit a final grading and drainage plan and the appropriate
hydraulic calculations.
2. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with the M 2, Heavy
Industrial District, requirements.
3. The petitioner shail execute and record joint parking and driveway agreemenfs
between the subject parcel and #he parcel to the west.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. SAVAGE, MS. SMITH AND DR. VOS VOTING AYE
AND MR. KUECHIE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE,
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this request at their meeting on April
8.
2
BY JANET LEHRKE:
Per Section 205.04.05.B of the Fridley City Cade, to allow two a sory structures
in the front yard in order to allow the construction of a 12 foo y 16 foot detached
shed in the front yard a�d to allow placement of a 10 fo by 10 foot shed in the
front yard on that part of Lot 28, Revised Auditors Su ' ision No. 77, lying easterly
of following described line: Beginning at a poi n south line of said Lot 315.64
feet westerly of southeast comer of said L, en north at right angle from said
south line to north line of said Lot an ere terminating; except west 90 feet
thereof; also exoept road; subjec:t to erit of record, the same being 7136 East
River Road N.E.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner aware of the meeting but saw attendance as optional
and was noi at the meeting. petitio�er has asked staff to come out and discuss some
alternatives. He asked t this item be continued to the next meeting on March 27.
3.
Per S ion 205.07.09.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
se dc from 27 feet to 15 feet to allow the oontinued existenoe of a screened porch
ted unde� a dedc on Lot 1, Blodc 1, Walt Harrier First Addition, the same being
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
� 6.22
/
_
F(ZIDL�EI(
MEMORANDUM
Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridiey, MN 55432 �
�
� (612) 571-3450
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager ��
�1
DATE: . Apri15, 1996
SUBJECT: Reduction of Speeds on County Road 132
Office of the City Manager
William W. Burns
Councilmember Nancy Jorgenson has requested that I place the resolution requesting that
Anoka County reduce the speed limit on 85th Avenue to 40 miles per hour on the Apri18,
1996, agenda. As the resolution suggests, Councilmember Jorgenson is very concerned
about the relationship of the speeding traffic to the children and adults using the Nature
Center. She has also expressed a concern about the inconsistency of speed limits on dif�erent
segments of 85th Avenue.
As you consider the resolution, you should also keep in mind that if the County is to change
speed limits on this road, they will need to ask MnDOT to conduct a speed zone study that
may or may not support our request.
Thank you for considering this matter.
WWB:rsc
.17.01
City of Fridley
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �!� ' PW96-068
�
FROM: John G. F1ora�Public Works Director
DATE: Apri18, 1996
SUBJECT: County Road 132 (8Sth Avenue) Speed Limits
T understand Councilwoman Jorgenson believes that the vehicle speeds on County Road
132 (85th Avenue) is excessive. She has requested that the City petition the Anoka
County Highway Department to reduce the speed to 40 miles per hour.
Attached is a resolution for the City Council to request the Anoka County Highway
Department to reduce the speed on County Road 132 (85th Avenue).
JGF:cz
Attachment
�7.a2
RE90I�fl'I�I BU. - 1996
• �: • 1 •; •�y� 1 :,ti � � i •�a�� I •: • � • ��+� r. •� li :� r.:i^►� .
�S, Cauncil me�nbers of the City of FYidley have detennined that there is
e�ccessive s��eed on County Highway 132 (85th Aveirue) between East River R,�ad
(cour►ty R�oaa 1) ana state Tn�r►lc xighway 47 (univexsity AverYUe) , ana
�S, County Highway 132 abuts the City of Fridley's Sprirgbrook Nature
Center, and
WI�REAS, the Nature Center is visited by childre.n and adults of all ages, in
searGh of quiet and wildlife e.�rienoes, and
WI�REAS, the acxes.s, safety and natural experie.zx�.s at the Springbrook Nature
Center are hindered by the speed of vehicles on Catuity Highway 132, arxi
Wi�REAS, the City (buncil believes that the vehicle speed on this route shauld
be reduced.
1�W. T�FORE. B� IT RF50LVED TI�,T, the City Council of the City of Fridley,
Anoka Cotulty, Miivze.sota, that the Anoka C�nty Highway DepaYt-mexit is requested
to reduce the traffic speed on County Highway 132 to a maxi�ann of 40 miles per
hour.
PA3SID 1�TD ADOP1tiD BY 2� CITY O�LR�CIL OF � CITY OF FRIDLEY �S 8'18 L1AY OF
APRIL, 1996.
ft YY�.`1i
WILISAM A. C�IAMPA - QTY CLERK
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
7 7.03