07/28/1997 - 4793'
CIlYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ATTENDENCE SHEET
Mo�.day, Ju,ey 2�, 1997
7:30 P.M..
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
ITEM
PRTNT NAMF fCLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER
� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
�
� oF JULY 28,1997
FRIDLEY
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 ALI.EGIANCE.
PROCLAMATION:
Blue and White Sunday - August 17, 1997
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 94; 1997
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS:
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 4, 1997
(Tabled June 23, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.20
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETlNG OF JULY 28, 1997 Panp 7
�1
APPROVALOFPROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 18, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.14
Special Use Permit Request, SP #97-05,`
by Kari Foster, to Ailow Construction
of a Second Accessory Stru�ture Over
240 Square Feet, Generally Located at
6654 East River Road N. E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.12
Variance Request, VAR #97-10, by
Karl Foster, to Reduce the Side Yard
Setback from 10 Feet to 6 Feet, to Allow ,
the Construction of a 14' x 30' Addition,
Generally Located at 6654 East River
Road N. E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.16
Resolution Approving a Subdivision,
Lot Split, L.S. #97-01, to Split 20
Feet from the Adjacent Property at
670 Dover Street N. E. and Add it to
7965 Riverview Terrace N. E.
(L.S. #97-01, by Monte and Michelle
Maher) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.12
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING.OF JULY 28, 1997
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED�
Receive Bids for the Improvement of
Interstate Highway I-694 N_E. Ramp
to Trunk Highway 47 (University Avenue),
Project No. ST. 1997 - 3(Ward 1)
and,
Page 3
Resolution Approving Mn/DOT Agreement
No. 76204 with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation for Improving the
I-694/TH 47 Northeast Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.03.
Resolution in Support of an
Application for a Minnesota Lawful
Gambling Premise Permit to CLIMB
Theatre Company (Maple Lanes,
6310 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.08
Claims
Licenses
Estimates:
....................................8.01
...................................9.01-9.03
...................................10.01
� •
f �'
0
7
• „
.
�
�
FRIDLEY CiTY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 1997
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
Variance Request, VAR #97-11,
by John and Joette Zembal, to
Reduce the Setback of an Attached
Garage from 4 Feet to 3 Feet, to
Allow the Construction of a 7' x 38'
Addition to an Existing Single Car
Garage, Generally Located at
6821 Seventh Street N. E. (Ward 1)
Resolution Authorizing Application
for the Livable Communities
Demonstration Program; Hyde
Park/57th Avenue Improvement
Paae 4
•�-•�• ............... 11.01-11.15
Pro�ect (Wards 1 and 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.11
Resolution Authorizing Inclusion of
Street Lights in the Intersection
Improvement Project for Trunk
Highway 65/Lake Pointe Drive/Central
Avenue (Wards 1 and 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.04
Informal Status Reports
ADJOURN:
..............................14.01
-- -: �
� � �.'�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28,1997
CfTY OF
The City of Frid(ey �.vill_not discriminate against or }iarass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its ��IWi�s,
programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, seaual orientation or stanis
with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accominodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in
any of Fridley's sei��ices, programs, and activities. Hearin� impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities
w1�o require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PROCLAMATION:
Blue and White Sunday - August 17, 1997
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 14, 1997
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS:
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 4, 1997
(Tabled June 23, 1997) . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.20
���. � � e �� e c��
NEW BUSINESS:
Receive the Minutes of the Planriing
Commission Meeting of June 18,
1997 .............. 2.01-2.14
��� �����
Special Use Permit Request, SP #97-05,
by Karl Foster, to Allow Construction
of a Second Accessory Structure Over
240 Square Feet, Generally Located
at 6654 East River Road N.E.
(Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.12
�������� �
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
Variance Request, VAR #97-10, by
Kari Foster, to Reduce the Side Yard
Setback from 10 Feet to 6 Feet, to Allow
the Construction of a 14' x 30' Addition,
Generally Located at 6654 East River
Road N.E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.16
�c� S S <'- �-
Resolution Approving a Subdivision,
Lot Split, L.S. #97-01, to Split 20 R,r�
Feet from the Adjacent Property at
670 Dover Street N.E. and Add it to � 5�
7965 Riverview Terrace N.E.
(L.S. #97-01, by Monte and Michelie
Maher) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.12
-�{ <.. SSe�
Receive Bids for the Improvement of
Interstate Highway I-694 N.E. Ramp
to Trunk Highway 47 (University Avenue),
Project No. ST. 1997 - 3(Ward 1)
and,
Resolution Approving Mn/DOT Agreement
No. 76204 with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation for Improving the
I-694/TH 47 Northeast Ramp ... 6���
� ,,, s� '!T
�a S Se � �
Resolution in Support of an —5
Application for a Minnesota Lawfu C
Gambling Premise Permit to CLIMB
Theatre Company (Maple Lanes,
6310 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) 7.01
�� ����� �
�.� 7
1:
h
APPROVALOFPROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
Claims
Licenses
Estimates
.............. 8.01
.............. 9.01 -9.03
.............. 10.01
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
NEV11 BUSINESS:
Variance Request, VAR #97-11,
by John and Joette Zembal, to
Reduce the Setback of an Attached
Garage from 4 Feet to 3 Feet, to
Allow the Construction of a 7' x 38'
Addition to an Existing Single Car
Garage, Generally Located at
6821 Seventh Street N.E. (Ward 1) ..... 11.01 - 11.15
�'�'� ��- t o r-� � v� v' �� � z C�..
Resolution Authorizing Application �
for the Livable Communities 1i l/
Demonstration Program; Hyde ���iJ
Par�/57th Avenue Improvement
Project (Wards 1 and 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.11
���� �� �-, o>-� C c�. r r� e�
Resolution Authorizing Inclusion of
Street Lights in the Intersecticn
improvement Project for Trunk
Highway 65/Lake Pointe Drive/Central
Avenue (Wards 1 and 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13 04
;�o}-,o,�
�=�� �\ 5
� �
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
Informai Status Reports . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 14.01
ADJOEJRN:
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETiNG OF THE FRTDLEY CITY COUNCIL
OF JULY 14. 1997
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at
7:39 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings, Councilman
Schneider and Councilwoman Bolkcom
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming Tuesday, August 5, 1997 National
Night Out. She called upon all citizens of Fridley to join the Fridley Neighborhood Watch and the
1Vationai Association of Town Watch in supporting the 13th Annual National Night Out on
August 5, 1997.
Mayor Jorgenson presented block captains Mel and Charlotte Bolen with the proclamation.
Residents of Fridley were encouraged to register for national night out visits from the local police
and fire departments by calling 572-3638 by the July 23rd deadline.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
COUNCIL MEETING. JUNE 23, 1997:
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA•
NEW BUSINESS:
1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 18 .t997:
RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 18, 1997.
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 2
2. VARfANCE REOUEST, VAR #97-OS. BY W W KLUS REALTY, TO INCREASE
THE MAXiMUM AREA OF A SIGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET TO 130 SOUARE
FEET TO AI,LOW TAE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7920-7990 UNYVERSITY AVENUE N.E
(WARD 3):
Councilman Billings recommended moving Item No. 2 from the consent agenda.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. APPROVAL OF A PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 7800 ELM
STREET N.E. UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1. 1997 (WARD 3)•
Mr. Burns, City Manager, reported that the permit request has been submitted by
Mr. James Graff. The permit would allow a trailer to house staff and offices while the
storm damaged building at 7800 Elm Street is reconstructed. The 12 foot by 56 foot
trailer will be removed by September l, 1997. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 7800 ELM STREET
N.E. UNITL SEPTEMBER 1, 1997.
4. RESOLUTION AUTHORTZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON WELL
HOUSE NO. 1 •
Councilman Schneider recommended moving Item No. 4 from the consent agenda.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA
LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS JAYCEES
CAARITABLE FOUNDATION:
Councilman Barnette recommended moving Item No. 5 from the consent agenda.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
6. APPOINTiViENT: CITY EMPLOYEE:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, introduced the consideration of a motion to appoint a City
employee, Angie Taylor, to Public Services Worker - Streets. The vacancy was created
by transferring a streets section employee to the water section. Ms. Taylor was selected
from 43 applicants. She has a Class B driver's license with air brake and pass�nger
FRTDLEY C[TY COUNCiL MEETING OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 3
endorsements, Hilti Actuator certification and supervisory certification from Employers
Association. She was previously a driver at Beckman Produce and was atso a director of
maintenance and security office at General Growth Management.
APPOINTED ANGIE TAYLOR TO PUBLIC SERVICES WORKER - STREETS.
July 14, 1997
Starting Starting
Name Position Salary Date Replaces
Angie Public Services
Taylor Worker, Streets
Non-exempt
7. CLAIIViS:
8.
9.
$11.86 July 28, Joseph
per hour 1997 Gonsior
AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 75168 - 75554.
LICENSES:
Councilman Billings recommended moving Item No. 8 from the consent agenda.
THIS ITElVI WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
ESTIMATES:
APPROVED THE ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS:
Frederick W. Knaak, Esq.
Holstad and Larson, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the month of June, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 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 May, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 19,250.00
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 4
Hardrives, Inc.
14475 Quiram Drive
Rogers, MN 55374
Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway
Project No. ST. 1994 - 9
Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,620.25
No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve ;onsent agenda items with the exception of
Items 2,4,5, 8. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Jorgenson declared the motion camed unanimously. '
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Co�ancilwoman Bolkcom to adopt the agenda with the addition of Items 2,4,5,8
from the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously.
OPEN FORUM. VISITORS:
No persons in the audience spoke during this item of business.
PUBLIC AEARINGS:
Motion by Councilman Billings to waive the reading and open the public hearing notice.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson
declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7:45p.m.
10. AMENDMENT TO SECTiON 7.02 OF THE FRIDLEY CTTY CHARTER
REGARDING TAXATION (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1997)•
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, reported that at the May, 1997, meeting of the Fridley Home
Rule Charter Commission, the amendment to Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter was
approved. This amendment is now recommended to the City Council for enactment by ordinance.
At the June 9, 1997 City Council meeting, a public hearing was opened and then continued to
July 14, 1997 to allow the Charter Commission Attorney sufficient time to review the newly
passed Omnibus Tax Bill to determine if any conflicts exist between the new enacted tax law and
the Charter change.
The conclusion that the Charter Commission Attorney reached was, "the proposed arnendment of
Section 7.02 of the Charter may be approved and would govern provided the levy limitations
FRIDLEY C1TY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1997 PAGE 5
codified therein do not exceed the levy limitations authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section
275.71, Subd. 4. As discussed previously; however, the levy limitations imposed by Minnesota
Statutes Section 275.71, Subd.4, must be considered and may supersede the amended charter
provision, at least for taxes levied in 1997 and �1998." Based on this information, Mr. Pribyl
brought the Charter change back to Council for their review.
This amendment removes the 16 mill language and replaces it with a Consumer Price Index
specific to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
The Charter Commission feels that this eliminates obsolete language while retaining some limits in
the area of taxation.
Councilman Billings clarified, from a practical standpoint, that this is a cleaning up of the
language, and it is fair to say there w�uld likely be no change in the way the city operates.
Mr. Pribyl confirmed that the language would not change the process or procedures that the City
has put into process over the past twenty years.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman
Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously and the public hearing closed at 7:53 p.m.
11. APPROVAL OF BEER LICENSE FOR ORIENTAL HOUSE (5865 UNIVERSITY
AVENUE N.E.) (WARD 11:
Motion by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and open the public hearing notice. .
Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote this public hearing was opened at
7:55 p.m.
Richard Pribyl. Finance Director, reported that this new license is a result of an ownership change
of this business. The Police Department has performed the required background investigation on
Oriental House. Public Safety Director Sallman has not found any reason to deny this request.
MOTION by Councilman Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman
Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.
12. HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND TAE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
TO FINANCE AN ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (NOAH'S ARK OF
FRiDLEY PROJECT) (WARD 3):
Motion by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and open the public hearing notice.
Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared
the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m.
FRiDLEY CiTY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 6
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, reported that this public hearing is required as part of the
process that the developer must go through to issue housing revenue bonds for the construction
of the elderly housing development, "Waters Crest." The procedure will introduce the concept of
issuing housing revenue bonds for the development of a senior housing facility. The project will
use $9,500,000 of housing revenue bonds to finance the construction. The debt i.s a conduit
financing that ties the owner of the development to the payment of the bonds and not the City.
The project consists of 112 one bedroom units renting between $605 and $825, as well as two
bedroom units renting between $875 and $1100_ The project will operate as an elderly rental
housing development within Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C.
Gary Porter, Developer of Noah's Ark, indicated that there is an age restriction determined by
HUD, for ages 55 and abo��e. He described the development which will include community
spaces for guest rooms, dinin� rooms, a general store, etc. to accommodate the needs of the aging
population.
Councilman Barnette inquired about qualifying considerations for application
Mr. Porter reported that at least forty percent of the applicants with sixty percent of inedian
income ($24,000) will qualify for the most cost effective rent (not to exceed $600 per month).
Units are 900 to 1,200 square feet, and are designed with ambiance. There are eight, 9,000
square feet of common area including green space available. Laundry facilities are available on
each floor and options to include then each apartment as well. Anticipated completion date is
June/July 1998. Questions and concerns can be addressed at the corporate office. That telephone
number is 484-6474.
The project has received final approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority on the
use of tax increment financing for the project. They will be receiving an amount not to exceed
$683,000 to be used for land acquisition and site improvements. The financing is provided to
reduce the rates to make units more affordable.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:08 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
13. RESOLUTION NO. 53-1997 OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA
DECLARING A BREACH OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FRTDLEY AND TWO OTHER PARTIES BY REASON OF THE
NON-PERFORMANCE BY THOSE PARTIES OF THEiR OBLTGATIONS
THEREUNDER, AND RESERVING FOR THE CITY OF FRiDLEY THOSE
FRIDLEY C(TY COUNCIL MEETI1vG OF JULY 14, 1997 _____ PAGE 7
REMEDiES AS MAY BE AVAiLABGE TO iT BY LAW (PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 6iST AVENUE AND EAST RiVER ROAD) (WARD 3) (TABLED JUNE 23,
1997 :
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Dir�ctor, reported that the City Council, at its June 9,
1997 meeting, directed staff to contact Mr. Nielson to address the Council about this resolution.
Mr. Nielson has indicated that he would not be in attendance at the July 14th meeting, and that
the property could be rezoned to R-1, Single Family Dwelling. He said that the new developer
would not be pursuing a rezoning to R-3, General Multiple Family Developing.
The resolution declares the 1984 development agreement between the City of Fridley, Maynard
Nielson, and Robert DeGardner breach. It also directs staff to take the required steps to rezone
the subject property located at 61st Avenue and East River Road from R-3, General Multiple
Family Dwelling back to R-1, Single Family Dwelling.
MOTION by Councilwoman Boikcom to adopt Resolution No. 53-1997. Seconded by
Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion
carried unanimously.
ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:
2. VARiANCE REQUEST, VAR #97-08, BY W.W. KLUS REALTY, TO INCREASE
THE MAXiMUM AREA OF A SiGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET TO i30 SQUARE
FEET TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7920-7990 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
(WARD 3):
Mr. Burns, City Manager, reported that the existing sign allowed by variance issued in 1985 is
160 square feet. The sign is being reconstructed to 130 feet. Petitioner is seeking variance for
size and set back. The request was approved unanimousiy by the Appeals Commission on
June 25, 1997 with three stipulations.
Motion by Councilman Billings to grant Variance Request, VAR #97-08 with the following three
stipulations: (1.) no additional pylon signs are to be allowed on either of the two parcels served by
the existing sign; (2.) if the parcels are separated, the sign must be brought into compliance; and
(3.) the City is held harmless from liability created by over hanging the sign on the boulevard.
This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: (1.) The sign is altered in
any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in
compliance with requirements; (2.) The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled;
(3.) The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled; (4.) The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged
and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than fifty percent of the value of the sign, at
which time all of the sign and its structure be removed; and (5.) Notwithstanding subparagraph
(1) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on this sign.
FRiDLEY CfTY COUNC(L MEETING OF JULY 14, 1997 PAGE 8
At such time the owner of the sign will have three months to obtain a sign permit and construct a
sign which meets all requirements of this Chapter, or obtain a variance for any new or existing
sign which does not meet all requirements of this Chapter.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson
declared the motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION NO 52-1997 AUTHORiZiNG ADVERTISEMENT FOR BiD� ON
WELL HOUSE NO. 1:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, presented estimates prepared by SEH at $255,000. Another $31,785
will be required to connect this location to our SCADA system. While these amounts are $36,000
above the 1997 Capital Improvement Plan appropriations for these items, we have $45,000 in
savings from well redevelopment that can be used to absorb the overage. If approved, the
project will be advertised this year for a late fall start. Major components of this prciect include
the demolition of the existing building and the construction of an 18 foot by 36 foot masonry
building; the reinstallation of well pump motor and accessories and booster pump, discharge.
piping, and chemical feed equipment; and the installation of motor center and instrumentation.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
MOTICiN by Counciiwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 52-1997. Seconde� by Coun�i.-
man Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously.
5. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA
LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMiSE PERMIT TO MINNEAPOLIS JAYCEES
CHARITABLE FOUNDATION:
Councilman Barnette shared comments of his experience working with WAABI, and the
tremendous assets WAABI has provided this community. It is not Council's intention to tell Main
Event how to run their business. He hopes there is a way to work out this issue.
Councilman Billings requested clarification that only one location can have a lease with charitable
gambling; however the new owners of Main Event have a prior working relationship with the
Minneapolis 3aycees, and he encouraged a good look at both organizations prior to making a
decision.
Ms. Reba WhiteOak, Gambling Manager for the World Association of the Alcohol Beverage.
Industry, addressed the Council and reported that the new owners of Main Event have made an
agreement with WAABI to remain doing business with them.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table Item No. 5 unti( petitioner requests the topic be
placed back on the agenda. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously.
FRiDLEY C�TY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF JULY 14. 1997 PAGE 9
8. LiCENSES:
MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the licenses. Seconded by Councilwoman
Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously.
OLD BUSiNESS:
14. ORDINANCE NO. 1100 AMENDING SECTiON 11.01 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY
CHARTER REGARDiNG PUBLIC UTILITIES (TABLED JUNE 23, 1997):
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director, reported that the Minnesota State Statute
requires that an ocdinance amending the City Charter must be adopted by the City Council by "an
affirmative vote of all its members. The purpose o� the amendment is to provide the legal
foundation to enable the City to lease public land and facilities to wireless communication
providers. In addition, the amendment will provide the City Council with the flexibility to
determine whether it should pursue ownership and operation of wireless communication facilities.
The proposed amendment clarifies what a public utility is and does not dictate to the City Council
which utility it should undertake. According to the City Attorney, a referendum must be passed
by two-thirds of the voters before the City Council can pass an ordinance to operate a utility.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to amend Section 11.01 of the Fridley City Charter
Regarding Public Utilities. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to remove from table the second reading of an ordinance
amending Section 11.01 of the City Charter to amend the definition of "public utilities" to include
wireless communication antennae. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
15. SPEC�AL USE PERMI'T, SP#97-02, BY HOME DEPOT USA, INC., TO ALLOW
NURSERIES OR GARDEN CENTERS WHICH REOUIRE OUTDOOR SALES
AND STORAGE. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5650 MAIN STREET N.E.
�WARD 3):
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, reported that this is a special use request permit, with four
aisles of parking removed in order to screen the area with chain link fence to allow garden sales of
22,000 square feet in the parking lot. Home Depot is located at 5650 Main Street, and zoned C-3
General Shopping Area. The current garden sales area is 27,972. Section 205.15.O1.C.(11) of
the Fridley City Code requires a special use permit for garden centers or nurseries which require
outdoor display or storage of inerchandise. Original approval stipulated no garden area sale.
Staf�'s recommendation to deny the request was partially based on viewing a video of the Home
Depot located in Maplewood.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1997 PAGE 10
A second visit was conducted today at the Maplewood store via video demonstrating
improvements; however it appears the chain link area serves as an inventory storage area. At the
commission meeting, Home Depot management was present, as they are this evening. They have
committed to improving the outward appearance.
Councilwoman Bolkcom inquired if part of this plan includes the storage of fertilizer outside.
This issue has arisen in the past. She asked if Wal-Mart has been granted approval for outside
storage.
Mr. Hickok responded that their pian, as discussed with the Planning Commission, did include
outdoor storage of fertilizer. Mr. Hickok continued by stating that Wal-Mart did have a short
term parking lot garden center as part of their commitment to increase the existing garden center
and containment area for trucks unloading. They also went through an elaborate process with
their outdoor merchandise area
Todd Mosher and Vern Taber, representing Home Depot, addressed the CounciL Todd Mosher
reported that the special use permit requested is for temporary, seasonal sales, from approxi-
mately the fourth week in April through the Fourth of July. He explained that the Fridley Home
Depot was one of the first stc�re� t� open in ±he Midwest: ThP original site plan approved did not
include an outdoor sales garden center. Home Depot did not anticipate the demand during April
ihrough 7uiy. riome Depot is a home improvement store, and due to demand, is difficult to stock
sufficient inventory inside during peak months. Other Home Depot stores in the metro area have
the outside sales area.
Councilwoman Bolkcom inquired if there are other options for expansion on the existing site. She
also requested clarification for the temporary request. She asked if the request is temporary, until
a permanent structure has been built, or if it is temporarily based on the calendar year for sales.
Mr. Hickok said that he believes there are architectural solutions that would allow the large
amount of inventory to be kept confined.
Mr. Taber reported that the extreme demand for seasonal merchandise is temporary, from April to
July. A temporary housing outside can be kept in an attractive and safe selling area in, order to
offer the quantities required in this community. The company is willing to put up safety signage
and work in cooperation with the City's requirements.
Mr. Taber requested permission for one year, where HomeDepot has an opportunity to provide
an example of good business practices. He also inquired why Menards is able to have outside
buildings and a fenced in area in their parking lot.
Councilman Billings reported that the zoning laws have changed since the time Menards
purchased the building. When Wal-Mart moved into the community they also did not anticipate
the sales volume of the growing season, and thus requested a special use permit for temporary
outdoor sales until a permanent structure could be erected. lf the city were to issue a temporary
permit for the 1998 growing season, it would be treated similarly to the Wal-Mart case.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 11
Therefore, Councilman Billings recommended tabling the topic tonight suggesting that Council
create some limitations as to what could be located outside and address the special use permit
request at the July 28 meeting. This would give Home Depot the opportunity to have a season of
outdoor sales in order to determine if it is a sound business decision to expand.
Councilman Schneider reported that Wal-Mart was granted a one-year special use permit with a
stipulation for approval of their expansion. It does not appear that Home Depot has plans to add
a permanent 22,000 square foot addition.
Mayor Jorgenson inquired from Home Depot representatives if they would like a decision tonight
or have the item tabled for two weeks.
Mr. Taber requested permission to present a revised pian this evening, as a result of the reaction
of the Planning Commission which would include: (1.) There will be no pesticides or herbicides
stored outside; (2.) a reduction of 22,OOOsq ft area down to a 10,000 sq. ft area to bring the
parking requirements to code; (3.) Safety concerns for pedestrian/vehicle issues will be addressed
with stop signs; and (4.) no parking signs, and the chain link fence could be green.
M�yor Jo:-genso:: requested clarification if this proposal is temporary.
Mr. Taber reported that Home Depot is willing to apply for a special use permit each year.
Mayor Jorgenson felt that if she saw a permanent structure in the plan she may consider
approving a request of this type. However it does not appear Home Depot has plans for
permanent expansion.
Councilman Barnette expressed concern that if this request were granted, all the other similar
businesses will be here with similar requests. He thanked the Home Depot representatives for
coming forward in a good faith effort to establish a working relationship with the City of Fridiey.
Mr. Hickok clarified the timetable remaining on this issue, as it can be addressed in August, and
must be voted on by August 25.
Councilman Billings summarized past representations made by Home Depot to get a store built,
which did a disservice to Home Depot Corporate Headquarters. It is difficult to not base
decisions on past experiences_ He recommended that the store develop a plan with their
corporate headquarters. Perhaps the planning staff could come up with some stipulations in the
event that Council moved to accept a special use permit.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table Special Use Permit 97-02 to August 11, 11997.
Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared
the motion carried unanimously.
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF JULY 14 1997 PAGE 12
1G. RESOLUTION NO. 54-1997 RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING
FiNANCE PROGRAM TO FINANCE AN ELDERLY HOUSiNG
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMiNARY APPROVAL TO THE
PROJECT AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO
MiNNESOTA LAW AND RATIFYING THE PREPARATiON OF A HOUSING
FINANCE PROGRAM (NOAH'S ARK OF FRIDLEY PROJECT) (WARD 3)
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, reported that this is the second step that Noah's Ark Senior
Housing, Inc. must follow in order to proceed with the senior project. In the public hearing it was
stated that the project is anticipating using housing revenue bonds, in an amount not to exceed
$9,500,000, and some tax increment funds to finance the project. This resolution will provide the
developer with the necessary City conceptual approval to proceed to have bond counsel prepare
the necessary documents that relate to the project. It also provides bond counsei with the
necessary authority to consult with the City .�lttorney, developer and underwriter of bonds, as to
the maturates, interest rates and any other items and provisions of the bonds necessary for the
preparation of the fina( documents that will be provided to the City, at some time in the future, for
the City Council's final approval of the project. There is nothing in this resolution related to this
project that will obligate the City to any expenditure of municipal funds.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 54-1977. Seconded by Council-
man Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously.
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
MAGGIE NELSON
Maggie Nelson, 6090 Woody Lane since 1960, addressed Council. Over the course of many
years she has had problems because of the storm sewer, which is stiil not capable of handling the
water. In 1981, Ms. Nelson had a retaining wall installed in her back yard as a result of storm
sewer flooding. Due to the storm last week the wall has been destroyed. Ms. Nelson has
received an $11,000 estimate to replace the wall without insurance to cover the cost. She is
requesting repair of the storm sewer to ensure the retaining wall will not be washed out again
during another storm. She is also requesting financial assistance in replacing the retaining wall.
Mr. Flora explained that it will take approximately two weeks to review the twelve properties
involved because of the recent flood events and to outline some solutions.
RAY MCAFFEE
Ray McAffee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive, reported that this problem has existed for twenty years. He
believes that a single catch basin with a 14 inch pipe was installed many years ago. He requested
the support of the City to address tl�is storm sewer problem and to assist Ms. Nelson financially to
replace the retaining wa11..
FRTDLEY CiTY COUNCTL MEETiNG OF JULY 14. 1997 PAGE 13
Councilman Schneider acknowledged the storm sewer problem. He reported that the City has
their engineers studying the problem to find a solution.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman
Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
unanimously and the Regular meeting of the Fridley City Council of July 14, 1997 adjourned at
9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Kidder Nancy J. Jorgenson
Secretary to the City Council Mayor
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CONII�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the June 4, 1997, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad
Sielaff, Larry Kuechle
Members. Absent: Diane Savage, Connie Modig
Gthers Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant _
Jim Randers, Displa,y Arts
Paul Stone, Stone Construction
Wes & Jeanine Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St NE
Linda Oslund, 5412 Madison Street N.E.
Pauline Charchenko, 589 Cheri Lane N.E.
Bob Dietrick, 572 Cheri Lane N.E.
Steve Britven, 572 - 63rd Avenue N.E.
A1 Noutsby, 5421 Madison Street N.E. ,
Norma Amundson, New Bri�ghton
APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the May
21, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR
DEC?�+,RED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. (Tabled from 5/21/97 meeting) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION
OF SPECIAL USE PERMI�', SP #97-02, BY HOME DEPOT,USA, INC.:
To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor
sales and storage on Lot l, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley
Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated this item was tabled at the May 21st meeting.
Staff today received communication that Home Depot wishes this
item to remain tabled until the June 18th meeting.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#97-04, BY JIM RANDERS:
To allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which
would bring the total lot coverage of the property to
approximately 500, on Lots 24 - 28, Block l, Onaway District,
generally located at 7839 Elm Street N.E.
�.� 1
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 2
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35
P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the request by Mr. Randers of Display Arts,
Inc., requires that a special use permit be approved to increase
the maximum lot coverage on an industrial lot from 40% to 500. If
approved, a 3,000 square foot, or 50 foot x 60 foot, addition
would be constructed onto an existing industrial building.,
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located generally at 78th
Avenue and Elm Street. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy
Industrial, as are all of the surrounding properties. Currently
on the property is a 10,500 square foot building which houses the
petitioner's business.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the speeial use permit as
outlined in the City code outlines two standards for consideration
of a special use permit request to inerease the maximum lot
coverage. These standards are the total net impact of the amount
of hard surface on a site and whether or not all other ordinance
requirements can be met by the request.
Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at the proposal in terms of the
hard.surface impact. There will be a net increase of 3,477 square
feet ot hard surface with the addition and a driveway. The
proposed addition would be added to the north of the existing
building. Also proposed is a small driveway from the existing
hard surface parking area in the alley to an overhead door in the
new addition. The purpose is for loading and off-loading displays
constructed by the petitioner. There is an opportunity to offset
this increase by about 676 square feet by remaving a portion of
the front sidewalk that currently exists in front of the building.
It appears that the main entrance will be toward the north with
another entrance to the south. A door is proposed for the new
addition and the sidewalk would be expanded. If the proposal is
approved with the offset, a total impact of the hard surface would
be 2,801 square feet.
Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of other code requirements, the
petitioner has submitted a landscape plan which me.ets the
requirements of the code. Staff has recommended that additional
landscape materials would assist in offsetting the impact of the
addition and the increase in hard surface.
Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of the zoning requirements in
�.�2
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 3
�
additio.n to the special use pexmit, the petitioner is also
pzocessing a variance request consisting of several variances
including:
l.
2.
3.
4 ..
Reducing the lot area from 1.5 acres to 27,000 square feet.
Reducing the side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Reducing the building setback from an alley right-of-way from
40 feet to 39 feet.
Reducing tne number of parking stalls from 31 spaces to 15
spaces.
5. Reducing the parking setback from the side lot line from-5
feet to. 0 feet, and from an alley ri.ght-of-way from 15 feet
to 0 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated, on May 28, the Appeals Commission reviewed
the variances requested and recommended approval to the Cifiy
Council of all variances with the s�ipulation that the special use
permit request also be approved. .
Ms. McPherson stated, regarding the stormwater drainage, the
engineering department has no items required of the petitioner.
The impact is relatively small and the engineering.department is
not requesting any ponding or change on the site for stormwater
drainage purposes.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends denial of the request as it
cannot meet the..two standards set forth in the code. However, if
the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this
request to the City Council, staff recommends the followirig
stipulations:
1. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows:
a.
b.
c.
Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshall's
ash.
Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four iri front
and two in the green area in the rear.
Add two additional Black:Hills Spruce at the front
(nor.thwest corner of the building).
2. The green area on the east side of the addition shall not be
converted to hard.surface.
1.03
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 4
3. The sidewalk in front of the building shall be removed as
indicated in the drawing "site modifications".
4. The petitioner acknowledges that the site is deficient in
parking and future reuse of the building will require a
tenant with similar or less parking space demands or
processing a special use permit for off-site parking.
5. Variance request, VAR #97-05, shall be approved.
Mr. Oquist asked what two factors they were concerned about in
Section 205.18.03.C.(4).(a) and (b).
Ms. McPherson stated the first is the total amount or impact of
hard surface whether it is a net increase or a net decrease. The
code would like it to be a net decrease. The second is whether or
not the other ordinance requirements can be met. The code talks
about drainage, landscaping, setback requir�ments, etc.
Mr. Oquist stated the drainage and landscape requirements can be
met. The setbacks were recommended for approval by Appeals. If
you eliminate the sidewalk in the front, how do they get to the
other doors? Is there not going.to be an extension of the
sidewalk to the entrance in the new addition?
Ms. McPherson stated the portion recommended to be removed is.the
triangular segments extending out from the front. The sidewalk
along the building would remain.
Mr. Kuechle stated parking is a problem there.
Mr. Kondrick asked how much increase in hard surface is there.
Ms. McPherson stated the increase is a fu11 10%. The petitioner
when first proposing this project wanted an addition of 60 feet x
75 feet. That would have pushed the lot coverage over SOo. The
petitioner reduced the size of the project one time in order not
to exceed the 50o maximum.
Mr. Randers stated his company makes trade show displays. The
problem they run into is that they have grown over the years and
need more space. As they are constructing the displays, the
clients want to see them up. The displays are then packed and
shipped. The more displays they get the more space they need.
When they put up displays in the existing section of the building,
they have to stop production on everything else. If they have
assembly work on a job, they need to rent space because they do
not have enough room. As far as parking, he is not lookinq to add
employees. They have three sales people who come and go and who
i.04
PLANNING CONIl�RISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 5
park in the front. They use only one entrance. It is okay with
him to take out the sidewalk because they use only one entrance.
They have five extra parking spaces and the neighbors park in
their spaces now. They do not need more people. They just need
more space for what they are now doing.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be off street parking.
Mr. Randers stated the sales representatives park on the street
but they come and go during the day.
Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Randers if he owned the building or if he
leased the building.
Mr. Randers stated he owns the property. He purchased it for
extra space and have been there since 1990. He owned a building
earlier on 77th and Beech. They sold that and moved two blocks to
their present location in 1990. Space is now a problem again.
Mr.-Sielaff asked if he anticipated growing even more.
Mr. Randers stated he didn't want to. He wanted to remain this
size. He did not anticipate expanding on this site.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the petitioner had any problems wit� the
stipulations.
Mr. Randers stated no.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any problem with the landscape
requirements.
Mr. Randers stated no. There are no trees there now so it would
probably look better.
Mr. Oquist asked what the door to the south used for.
Mr. Randers stated they purchased the building from ICA. They
have an office there but never use that door.
Mr. Oquist asked, if they say remove all the sidewalk with just a
sidewalk along the building and from the door to the street, that
would eliminate some of the hard surface.
Mr. Randers stated that would probably be easier for them. He
thought the doors were there because of the fire marshall.
Mr. Saba asked how much more green space this would add.
1.05
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 6
Ms. McPherson stated this would reduced the hard surface by
perhaps a few hundred square feet. It is not substantial compared
to the size of the addition.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50
P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would be inclined to recommend approval to
the City Council of this request with the five stipulations as
outlined.
Mr. Oquist stated a recommendation should also include the
rearrangement of the sidewalk.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought this was covered by stipulation #3.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist to recommend
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-04, by Jim Randers, to
allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which would
bring the total lot coverage of the property to approximately 50%,
on Lots 24 - 28, Block l, Onaway, generally located at 7839 Elm
Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
l. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows:
a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshall's
ash.
b. Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four in front
and two in the green area in the rear.
c. Add two additional Black Hills Spruce at the front
(northwest corner of the bui�ding).
2. The green area on the east side of the addition shall not be
converted to hard surface.
3. The sidewalk in front of the building shall be removed as
indicated in the drawing "site modifications".
4. The petitioner acknowledges that the site is deficient in
parking and future reuse of the building will require a
tenant with similar or less parking space demands or
processing a special use permit for off-site parking.
1.06
PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 7
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item on
June 23.
3. INFORMATIONAL HEARING REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITES
Mr. Hickok stated this is an issue talked about before, and they
welcome the opportunity to have audience participation to get a
better understanding of what the issues are and ask questions they
may have. The telecommuriications issue relates to cell phones,
digital pagers, satellite dishes, etc. Mr. Hickok showed a video
tape which explained the telecommunications issues. The City
Council has passed a moratorium on the construction of towers
until December, 1997.
Mr. Hickok stated in 1996 the Federal government passe.d a
telecommunications act which eliminated the previons regulatory
boxes, increased competition and removed other regulatory
barriers. Towers have been constructed around the nation whether
they be monopoles or lattice-work towers. Cities are required to
allow towers in.their communities. There a�e two app�oaches as to
where.these towers may be located. One method is market driven
where telecommunications companies can choose where to locate a
tower whether it be on gublic or private property. Another method
is site specific where the sites are identified and parameters set
for construction of these towers.
Mr. Hickok stated staff prefers the site specific approach and has
determined nine possible locations for towers as follows: 1) Well
Site #1 on Cheri Lane; 2) a vacant parcel at the end of Cheri -
Lane; 3) �zater reservoir site at Lincoln and Slst; 4) Well Site
#13 on East River Road; 5) Commons Park near the other utilit�t
structures; 6) Community Park adjacent to the industrial district
and railroad track; 7) City garage and recycling eenter complex,
8) the existing water tower on Highway 65; and 9) Edgewater Park
north of Mississippi Street.
Mr. Oquist stated the video indicates there are some towers
located on private buildings. Are they owned by the
telecommunications companies and do they rent the space?
Mr. Hickok stated yes to both questions.
Mr. Kuechle asked what would happen to those in the City with the
new ordinance plan.
1.07
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JZJNE 4, 1997 PAGE 8
Mr. Hickok stated the first choice would be to put them on high
topographic locations and on high structures in the community.
This would eliminate the need for higher tower structures. We do
have provisions currently in the industrial ordinance that says by
special use permit these could exist in industrial districts. If
on top of a building, though, they would be an accessory to a
principle use and would be accepted. That is why the McGlynn's
tower was approved without a special use permit. The St. Paul
water tower was approved in the same way. The Highway 65 water
tower where they have a cellular array was approved by a lease
agreement with .the City and the City receives an annual fee for
that. The one at Great Northern Industrial Park is the U.S. West
Cellular line and was constructed in 1992 with.a special use
permit. _
Mr. Oquist asked if there were strategic places these towers
needed to be and if eight sites would be enough. �
Mr. Hickok stated the way staff evaluated from a site specific
standpoint is that the consultant has indicated we might see 17
requests for towers. Of those 17 vendors looking for a site, we
could see co-location as a ver.y strong possibility which would
eliminate the need for l7 towers and drop the number back
considerably. We would allow a number of users to go on one
location. Staff is lookin�g•at eight sites. Conceivably on those
eight sites there could be room for two or three vendors-on each
monopole.
Mr. Sielaff asked what the ordinance would cover. Would it cover
site locations or would zt indicate what sort of site
characteristics would need to exist?
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance would assure that towers are only
constructed in the locations that have been selected. Initially,
staff would identify a set of sites to be approved.. It could be
expanded in the future depending on the technology. Initially, it
would be the sites that were seiected and then set parameters much
like the industrial buildings. There would be landscape
standards, site location features, etc. Staff would probably on a
site-by-site basis determine where the least visible site would be
and most sensitive to residential areas. The ordinance would
assure that we have the control necessary to say what we want on a
specific sit�. The ordinance has not yet been drafted. The
Planning Commission will have an opportunity to see that language
when it is put together.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the lattice construction would be allowed.
- � .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 9
Mr. Hickok stated the lattice construction would not be allowed.
Mr. Kondrick stated the telecommunications area is one where we
have no choice. They want to get coverage in every community
across the country. The City has a moratorium in order to provide
time to make studies and make sure the towers are located in the
right place.
Mr. Hickok stated, as staff evaluated the market driven approach,
they looked at it and determined this approach is still up for
grabs, although staff prefers the site specific approach. The
market driven approach would be one of vendors coming in and
saying they have selected a site and then going through the
required processes. It goes back to an earlier question of what
needs to be done in terms of placement. The City has to make a
reasonable and realistic effort to accommodate the technology. We
have control of where it is located as long as we are reasanable
in our approach. We have hired a consultant to determine what
kind of demand we will have which is based on the Federal licenses
that have been granted. Based on the demand, we can make a
reasonable effort to place poles. Each tower has a certain
radius. There may be a tower across the.river, for example, that
is directed toward the surge tower site on Alden Way. Then
another tower in Edgewater Park or Community Park would have to
direct their equipment in such a way to make the system work.
Hickok stated he believes they have �et a good pattern w�th these
eight locations to make it work and we can determine the
locations.
Mr.. Kondrick stated, with the advances in technology, what about
the future whereby they are about to make these more powerful.
What is the possibility o� a downsize? If we granted ten sites
today., what are the chances of there being a need for five sites
tomorrow?
Mr. Hickok stated this was a concern initially about gettirig
geared up too big and finding out they would need something"
smaller. The technology has been on the horizon for a long time.
In talking to the vendors and our consultant, there is not another
similar technology on the horizon at this time. Folks are
entering into 20 year leases with the expectatian that the need
for these towers is not going to go away. The technology is very
different. Many uses are digital and work best under low power,
so the poles being located close together don't need a lot of
power to project from one to the next. That also gives the
clearest signal. Now we are seeing the large towers or T-1
towers. What we will probably see are T-2 towers which are
smaller but there would be more of them. Receivers may get
smaller yet to tY�e point where they may piggyback on existing
1.09
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1997 PAGE 10
features.
Mr. Kondrick asked, of the sites selected, what do the consultants
feel will be the tallest tower neeessary in this community.
Mr. Hickok stated the City is fortunate enough to have several
topographic shifts. The height depends on the site line. If you
have one tower on a hill and another in the valley, the lower one
will have to be much taller. We are expecting pole heights to be
75 feet at higher levels to 150 feet in lower locations.
Mr. Saba asked if there were construction codes for these towers
in terms of safety issues.
Mr. Hickok stated yes, that is one of the beauties of the monopole
technology as staff sees it. Staff toured a factory. The mono-
poles with the equipment attached are designed for wind loads of
12-0 miles per hour (mph). They have been tested in Hurricane
Andrew and have not had a failure to date. In Minnesota, the wind
load expectations are 80 mph at the high end. The monopole
technology observed meets the expectations of our Building staff.
Poles will be required to have structural engineering data and
certification to assure integrity.
Mr. Kondrick stated, because parks are being considered as
possible locations, there may be a building constructed at the
base of the towers to house electrieal, etc. Are we going to be
able to insist that the building be of a certain size, of a
certain construction material, etc.?
Mr. Hickok stated yes.
Mr. Sielaff asked if other cities are doing ordinances.
Mr. Hickok stated there are some ordinances out there. There is a
spectrum of responses to this technology. Bloomington has an
ordinance that they are utilizing. White Bear Lake has taken the
approach that the towers will be on public land. Those ordinances
are available for review.
Mr. Kondrick stated Edina is also meeting about this issue.
Mr. Sielaff asked if we need to coordinate this with other cities
in the area.
Mr. Hickok stated their early.discussion pointed to a regional
approach. It seems that a regional/metro approach would have been
the way to do this. We need to make a reasonable accommodation
for the technology. Which tower selected in Fridley would
1.10
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 11
probably be determined by how close a vendor's towers are in a
bordering community.
Mr. Kondrick stated, for example, if Columbia Heights wants to
have a pole in this location and ours is there but it is too far
away, do you then have to move your pole?
Mr. Saba asked, in conjunction with that, if Columbia Heights has
a pole and another company wants put in a pole in Fridley, how can
we coordinate with Columbia Heights, Blaine, etc.
M-r. Hickok stated we have to be reasonable in the number. That is
determined based on not having knowledge of where they are going
to be in other communities.
Mr. Kuechle stated he was not elear as to whether there still
would be antenna allowed on private buildings by special use
permit.
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance would probably repeal the existing
language. Right now, that is frozen by the moratorium. He
thought the City had used up their high sites. Short of the water
tower, McGlynn's, and the surge tow�r, the�e is not a lot there
that has the height necessary.
Mr. Oquist asked if staff knew the.status of what surrounding •
communities were doing. Are they in the same situation? Perhaps
we should be showing neighboring communities where are sites will
be so we don't have a"farm" of antennas.
Mr. Hickok stated Columbia Heights and Hilltop have been
experiencing construction of towers. In the other communities,
there are a number of moratoriums..
Ms: McPherson stated, to her knowledge, Coon Rapids enacted a
moratorium about the.same time as Fridley. However, Coon Rapids.
has installed a number of antenna sit.es. One is to the west of
the Northtown Financial Plaza. She thought the moratorium there
was for 18 months. Coon Rapids has been realizing they have been
issuing permits. They have two towers within 10 or 15 feet of
each other which happened because they did not have a coordinated
approach. They are now finding out they have multiple tower
sites.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the moratoriums would all come due at the
end of the year or if the moratoriums were different for different
cities. How is the government allowing that?
Mr. Hickok stated the Federal government is allowing that and sees.
1.11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, �997 PAGE 12
that as reasonable for cities to have time to establish where it
is they want and need the technology to go.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a deadline.
Mr. Hickok stated this falls back to what is reasonable. At the
point where a City is using this to avoid getting structures, the
vendors will probably challenge and the courts will decide.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he thought Mr. Hickok had done a pretty
good job of illustrating the locations that are appropriate for
towers and antennas for telecommunications sites. As he watched
the video, everything seemed to be commercial and industrial
sites. However, out of the eight sites proposed, two of them are
in the heart of residential districts - the Cheri Lane well house
and the vacant parcel at the end of Cheri Lane which is a City
park. The sites are relatively small sites and axe both City
properties, but he would guess the sites are 100 feet square.
They are located adjacent to homes. If you consider the fact that
putting in a 75 foot to 150 foot high tower 50 to 100.feet from
his back door he feels a bit concerned about having that kind of a
structure that close and located within a residential area. He is
curious that two of the sites are located in residential areas.
Perhaps the commission could respond to those issues.
Mr. Kondrick asked how to get the coverage needed in the area
where needed.
Mr. Hickok stated, in all cases, these are City owned properties.
We believe we have the best control over the maintenance of the
towers and what happens to the towers on our property. Staff had
a GIS map made that showed every piece of public property
throughout the City. Staff went through every one of those pieces
and asked if the site was big enough, its proximity to other
things, etc. These two sites are in an area where we don't have a
lot of land area but need coverage. There are some small parks.
If they contain a playground or activity area, it may not be
appropriate as a site. The land area on the site behind Target is
wooded and contains a park. It contains a small buiiding for
hockey storage. It is a wooded site and has the possibility of
putting that base in the wooded area which would mitigate eye
level site from the ground and still fill a void in that area. It
is not in the midst of a playground and has some natural cover.
The well site is in the same area. It is an open site that does
not have another activity besides the well. It could accommodate
a combination well building and equipment building for the tower.
It does have land area and it does not have a contradictory uses.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was commercial property in that area.
�.�2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok stated the site.is along I-694 and the commercial area
is further to the east. This site is surrounded by residential,
but it is not unusual to see that. This is a technology that has
been determined to be safe by all Federal standards. It is so
safe that the Federal government has said that cities will not be
responsible for and should not be involved in trying to regulate
health concerns. In many cases, the wattage is equivalent to a
100 watt light bulb for each user. The signal is clear because of
the low power. Cellular is about three times that. Technology
runs in different bands. That is another thing the Federal
government insures.
Mr. Kondrick stated they had talked about the equipment building
that needs to be at the base of the tower to house the
electronics. We need to have a vehicle acces� to get to the
building for work and/or maintenance. That is another
consideration. Putting a tower in a park is a major concern.
They do not want to upset the nature of activities in parks. He
did not know how that would be arrived at. He did not think there
were any harmful effects.
Mr. Oquist asked if staff had given consideration to putting.a
tower across I-694 at the Lake Pointe site.
Mr. Hickok stated there is great potential'that once a building is
there that would work. There is a master plan approved for Lake
Pointe. It could work on top of a building but a free standing
structure is contrary to the master plan.
Mr. Oquist stated it could be incorporated into the master plan.
He thought that should be given consideration because it is not 'in
a park or residential area. It is an open.area. It may be a good
alternative to these two sites.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he understood Lake Pointe was a large area
and the development for that area was a large commercial building.
It is surrounded by public roadways. There is an area to the east
of the immediate site for the building between Lake Pointe Drive
and the ramp to I-694 that is a prime site. It is a smaller area.
It is not an aesthetic issue and may be appropriate for
consideration.
Mr. Saba stated he thought this would be preferable to
residential.
Mr. Noutsby stated he was a lifetime resident on
He and his family moved there before Target. The
minutes from back then indicate the City Council
1.13
Madison Street..
City Council
made a verbal
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4� 1g97 PAGE 14
commitment to the property owners there that they would dedicate
the area behind Target as a park to be a buffer zone for Target.
He does not want trees taken down or damage done to the wildlife
or the buffer. He asked if staff had taken that into
consideration. This is a park and the City has the right to build
what they want on a public park. He does not want the City to
build a commercial building.
Mr. Saba stated it is not something we want to build. The problem
is that the telecommunication act as passed by Congress took away
the right from the city to say no. We have two choices. We can
either let the telecommunicaLions companies decide where they want
to go or we can preselect si.res. The Planning Commission and
staff feel that preselection of sites is in the best interest so
we can get input and take that input in deciding the final
locations. This is excellent input. He would prefer to stay away
from residential area.
Mr. Noutsby stated in their neighborhood they don't need a tower.
As far as no health risk, he has heard that too many times in his
lifetime. At the time of the Korean War, tney were sprayed with
DDT and told it was perfectly safe. When the major power lines
were installed, they said it would not hurt anyone but they found
out later it was harmful. This may be the same. He hopes they
are right and that people will feel no effects in 20 years. He
felt it should be kept away from the neighborhoods.
Ms. Charchenko stated she lived next to the well site on Cheri
Lane. She would just as soon not have it there. This is a
residential area. The Lake Pointe site would be perfect. She
lives right next door to this site and does not think it is a good
idea.
Mr. Britven stated he lives near Commons Park. Is the
installation going to go on the water tower in that location?
Mr. Hickok stated it is possible and that is something they would
consider. Water tower applications are very common. It is not
certain. The City would go back to the Park & Recreation
Commission before doing anything in a park.
Mr. Britven asked if these are strictly relay systems or are these
bases.
Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that these would be
relays and not bases. The closest example of a base is the Arden
Hills site that has buildings at the base which serves as a base
that sends out signals to the secondary towers. If he understands
the question correctly, it is whether or not we wi11 have a
1.14
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 15
similar impact on
base station is a
here. Only those
building.
the land. He thought what they would see on a
large building{s). They are looking at towers
tower sites that have cellular will have a
Mr. Britven stated, when these are constructed, he thought they
need to consider the maximum wattage. These emit radiation. It
would be interesting to see if you could regulate the power per
unit area in milliwatts by the different vendors throughout the
poles. He does not have cable TV. Would this interfere with the
regular TV channels?
Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that it runs on different
bands completely and will not interfere with the other bands. Mr.
Britven's previous points are clearly spelled out in the Federal
regulations that cities cannot control power and interference.
That is controlled by the Federal government.
Mr. Oquist stated he would expect that, if there is interference,
they are going to have to put some filters out there.
Mr. Britven stated, with these poles and multiple vendors, he
thought the city should have some sort of regulation on maximum
wattage if you get multiple vendors on a particular pole. He
asked staff to explain more about the wattage.
Mr. Hickok stated there are a number of pieces of literature that
are available either from the industry itself or from third
parties that have done separate analysis of this issue. This
particular piece of information is from the Personal
Communications Industry Association which talks about structural
components of the towers, the frequency or EMF, etc. Under the
EMF, it states .that many wireless services operate at a low power
level. For instance, cellular and PCS transmitters operate at 100
watts or less. Paging transmitters and two-way radio antenna
seldom operate at power levels higher than 100 watts: On multi-
use towers, the systems that operate at higher power levels are
usually located towards the top of the structure and the lower
powered cellular and PCS transmitters are located toward the
bottom. With three vendors on a tower, we might see a wattage
that would be approximately 1500 watts. Likely, we would see a
mix of cellular at 300 watts, pagers at 500 watts, and�PCS
applications at 100 watts. With a height of 150 feet, it would be
reasonable to expect three vendors on a pole.
Mr. Grandstrand stated his first concern was aesthetics. With the
latest discussion he is having another concern which is the
introduction of commercial traffic into a residential area. If we
have one or two towers and have vendors that have to access those
1.15
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 16
areas with some frequency, he thought that would introduce into
the picture commercial traffic on residential streets. They have
a unique neighborhood with children playing in the yards so that
brings in another issue to consider. For those that are not
familiar with the neighborhood, this is a rather isolated area.
It is bound on the west by 7th, Madison on the east, and three
cross streets - 53rd, 54th, and Cheri Lane. There is one way in
and one way out. The infrastructure is there for residential
traffic, but if you start adding to it he did not know how much
commercial traffic could be supported.
Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the service vehicle would be a van.
He did not think they are t,alking about a lot of trucks back and
forth.
Mr. Grandstrand stated, as far as frequency, that may be more of
an issue. He did not know who made the decision to construct the
sports storage facilit y. That building in itself has introduced
so much more traffic in that area. They will see people there
once a month, and they will see vehicles come in there by the
dozen. Everyone that has children in a sports program is serviced
by that facility and will come in one car after another for a
period of an hour to an hour and a half. People will turn around
in the driveways. The children have come in, swung on trees and
broken limbs. These are things that are out of place with the
neighborhood. It is just another item to bring in traffic that
does not have business in the neighborhood.
Ms. Amundson stated her question.was about safety concerns. When
she goes into the bank, there is a sign asking people no to use
cell phones.
Mr. Hickok stated the same is true on airplanes. Where there is
any chance that this would interfere with a security system or
flight/safety systems, you will be asked to turn it off. On this
technology, you have more power in your hands than on the pole
itself. This is an issue that is very clear in the�FCC
regulations about how the tower is.structured and what kind of
impacts this power will have on the surrounding area. It is
negligible.
Mr. Saba stated he works in the network industry. The big problem
is getting oscillator chips which generate the signals. That
signal may interfere with the security systems in a bank or on an
airline.
Ms. McPherson stated it may not be a case of the actual electronic
technology although she has noticed more and more places are
asking people to turn off their phones. It may be just a
1.16
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 17
situation of the bank trying to create a quiet space to work with
clients. It may not be a health risk but it may be an issue of
consideration.
Ms. Amundson asked what is happening with New Brighton and other
cities. Is anyone challenging this?
Ms. McPherson stated she did not know what New Brighton was doing.
She will check.
Mr. Hickok stated they were seeing a broad spectrum of responses.
Roseviile is getting a number of towers and they seem to be doing
a good job of regulating where they a,re going. Shoreview and some
of the other communities have taken a closer look. They have had
some experience with radio towers of a different type that is
causing them to slow down and take a look. A moratorium is a
popular response to the .FCC regulations. At the time staff asked
the City Council to consider a moratorium, Washington County was
about the only other morat.orium staff was aware of. Since then
Coon Rapids and some other communities also have a moratorium. �
Ms. Amundson stated she thought they should look at other cities
and what they are doing.
Ms. Grandstrand stated, if these forums continue, mare of the
people in the areas where these are planned should be notified.
Persons within 350 feet are notified. She thought the whole area
should be notified rather than just those within 350 feet:
Mr. Saba stated a notice is placed in the newspaper.
Ms. Grandstrand stated it is different if the notice is received
at your home. Like an advertisement, if you put it in different
forms, more people will see it.
Mr. Noutsby stated from the comments from the people we don't want
this in our neighborhood. What can we do to stop it? He thought
it should be going into a commercial area. He does not care if it
needs to be higher. They don't need anything more in their
neighborhood. That small area is their buffer from Target and
commercial. There in not much left for them.
Mr. Kondrick stated these comments will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
Mr. Hickok stated they are cognizant of putting towers in
residential areas. As an example, there are three points south of
I-694 that have been chosen. All of this has been done in a way
that it takes the City, lays out the geographic area, and tries to
1.�7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 18
find locations that match the technology and match the
reasonableness test we have to pass. Folks from the area of
Lincoln and Slst probably would also say they did not want this in
a residential area. We cannot avoid residential areas. While
this is information gathering, he did want to point out that we
are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to being reasonable
in our coverage expectations so we are considering areas we may
not have considered before but that have location features that
are necessary. It is not a contradictory use as they see it. The
screening would have to be taken into consideration. If it
determined that a park is an appropriate location, the Park &
Recreation Commission has asked that it come back to them and that
they take a sp�,�cific look at it. It will be an elaborate review
process before a tower is placed in a park. We may not be able to
assure people we can keep them out of residential areas.
Mr. Grandstrand thanked the staff and Planning Commission for the
opportunity to express their opinior.s ar.d share their thoughts.
Ms. McPherson stated she checked to see what other commnnities are
doing. Staff have talked with Mounds View, Richfield, Brooklyn
Center, New Brighton, Cr�stal, and Brooklyn Park. New Brighton
h�s adopted a zoning ordinance amendment. It appears they have
gone through the process. Based on their matrix, towers are
allowed in commercial and industrial districts, in park areas,'and
it appears that single family districts are considered. It does
not appear that they are processing special use permits, but they
do have some strict standards on height, setbacks, support
buildings, etc.
Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see some close scrutiny by us
on what other cities are doing. We have control over what we do
here. He is concerned about what other cities are dning. If
other cities put towers in commercial areas close to our
boundaries, it could be close to our residential areas. He
thought that could impact Fridley.
Mr. Oquist stated, if another community does that, we cannot stop
it or do anything about it. He thought we needed to be aware of
it. He thought the communities in this area need to form a
committee to say this is what we are doing and coordinate those
efforts. He thought they could have some control through
coordination.
4. 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Ms. McPherson stated this item is the presentation by Ms. Dacy as
made before the City Council. That was to have been a video taped
presentation. Unfortunately, the videotape is on loan to one of
1.18
PI,�I�TNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 19
the Councilmembers. This item will be presented at the June 18
meeting.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 23, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of April 23, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF T'iE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY 5, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of May 5, �
1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the
meeting. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON iCONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JUN� 4, 1997., PLANNING
CONIlriISS20N MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:08 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�i C(%
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
1.19
S r G N— IN S H E E T
I'LANNING COMMISSION.MEgTING, Wednesda
y, June 4, 1997 .
1.20
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the June 18, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist,
Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Brad Sielaff
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Todd Mosher, Greenberg Farrow Architects,
1101 Perimeter Drive, Schaumburg, IL
� Vern Taber, Home Depot, 5650 Main Street,
Fridley
APPROVAL OF JUNE 4, 1997 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the
June 4, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPSR90N SAVAGE�DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -�
1. (Tabled from 6/4/97 meetin ) PUBLTC HEARING: CONSIDERATIOA
OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-02, BY HOME DEPOT USA, INC.:
To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor
sales and storage on Lot l, Block.l, Home Depot Fridley
Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to remove this
item from the table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dquist, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:40 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated that prior to the staff presentation, staff
would like to present a short videotape of the Maplewood Home
Depot location, showing a similar outdoor sales area as that.
requested by the petitioner in Fridley. Ms. McPherson sta�ed that
2.01 I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 2
the video was created prior to the May 7, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting.
The video showing the Maplewood Home Depot store was presented.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the video was taped early in April
or May, recent site inspections by staff�have revealed that the
conditions have not changed significantly since that time.
Mr. Hickok brought attention to the vehicular movement and the
storage of treated lumber at the Maplewood site during the video
presentation. He also stated this the Maplewood store's garden
center has many similarit�,es to the Fridley store.
Ms. McPherson stated that the petitioner, Home Depot, is
requesting a temporary garden sales area to be allowed in the
southeast corner of the parking lot. The proposed sale time would
be from the 4th week of Aprzl to the lst week of July each year.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed sale area is 22,000 square feet,
or 100' x 220'.
Ms. McPherson stated that Home Depot is located at the
intersection of Main Street and 57th Avenue, with approximately
11.68 acres in area. The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping
Center, and is surrounded on all sides by M-2, Heavy Industrial
zoning. The City rezoned the property from industrial to
commercial to allow construction of the Home Depot store in 1994.
Ms. McPherson stated that Home Depot has a garden sales area which
is constructed as part of the Home Depot facility. This garden
s.ales area is 27,972 square feet. The original special use permit
to allow the garden center stipulated that no garden sales.were to
occur outside of the garden sa�es area. Staff's position is that
any additional sales should be integrated as part of the building.
Ms. MePherson stated that staff's recommendation to the Planning
Commission is that it recommends denial of the request to the City
Council for the following reasons:
l. The request is contrary to the original special use permit for
garden center sales.
2. The request occupies a significant amount of parking area.
3. The request creates traffic conflicts with, pedestrians.
Ms. McPherson stated staff's alternative would be to construct
some type of enclosed area along the front of the facility or to
expand the existing garden sales area to accommodate the
2.�2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 3
additional sales requirement, similar to what was required of Wal-
Mart in 1994.
Ms. Savage asked if there were any similar businesses in Fridley
that have garden sales in the parking lot.
Ms. McPherson stated that the only similar request would be the
Target store, which received a special use permit prior to the
Wal-Mart request in 1994. The Wal-Mart request has set a
precedent requiring that garden sales be integrated as part of the
overall building design.
Ms. Savage asked if Wal-Mart requested garden sa1�s in the parking
lot.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. Wal-Mart did request garden sales in
the parking lot, and staff approved them one year of sales with
the stipulation that the following year the sales must occur
within an expanded garden center area, which they did comply with.
Ms. Modig stated that Menards used to have the same thing and they
have discontinued that.
Ms. McPherson stated that was correct.
Mr. Oquist asked if this would be seasonal, and would be only good
from the 4t'' week of April through the lst week of July.
Ms. McPherson stated that since this request would not be�
considered by the City Council until the first meeting of July,
this years' sales will not occur in the parking lot, so this
special use permit would�become effective in 1998 if approved.
Mr. Oquist asked if this could be a seasonal request or would it
need to be approved on a yearly basis.
Ms. McPherson stated a stipulation stating it is valid for a one
year growing season could be approved. Special use permits are
typically approved to run with the property, so a stipulation
would need to be approved to require annual approval of seasonal
sales.
Mr. Saba asked if the garden center that was shown on the video
sells for the same period of time or if it was permanent feature
of the store.
Ms. McPherson stated that was a good question for the petitioner,
however, in other communities that were surveyed which have Home
Depots and have issued some type of seasonal sales stipulations,
2.03
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 4
they do limit the amount of time of the sales.
Mr. Mosher presented a site plan showing the Fridley Home Depot
store and the existing garden center, and indicated the traffic
circulation patterns. He stated this request was for a temporary,
seasonal sales area for the 4th week of April through the lst week
of July. He stated that in Fridley, there is an abundance of
parking spaces available, which dictates the size of the requested
temporary garden sales area. Mr. Mosher described some of the
items which would be sold in the temporary garden sales area and
explained the proposed circulation of the sales area.
Mr. Mosher stated that as far as staff's recommendation of denial
is concerned and the three points that were mentioned earlier, it
is true that the proposed garden area occupies a significant
amount of the parking area, but it does not impact the parking
ratio. Mr. Mosher believes that there is no conflict in terms of
traffic or pedestrian crossing than currently exists.
Mr. Mosher stated that as far as the comment to the original
special use permit, it is true that it does not permit the sale or
display of plant materials outside of the existing garden center.
What Home Depot is hoping to do�is to extend the garden center in
an effort to comply with that stipulation and consider this as
temporary and seasonal which would be within the confines of the
garden center and essentially comply with the stipulation of no
outdoor sales.
Mr. Mosher stated that in closing, a large part of Home Depot's
business is the annual sales of lawn and garden materials. This
is the bread and butter of their annual sales. They would like to
make sure that they .can meet the peak demand for product by do-it-
yourself-ers in the area. He stated that the window of
opportunity is very short.
Mr. Mosher stated that he wished to introduce Vern Taber, who is
the new Fridley store manager.
Mr. Kondrick as.ked if the fence is erected around this area would
be permanent.
Mr. Mosher stated that it would be a temporary fence. He stated
metal sleeves would be installed in the parking lot in which the
fence pole would be inserted.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there were plans to sell fertilizers or any
kind of plant materials that would contaminate the water drainage
occurring at the site.
2.04
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 5
Mr. Mosher stated it would not be under cover. It was his
understanding that the fertilizers that they currently have in the
garden center are not under any cover.
Mr. Taber stated that they would like to store fertilizers and
topsoil in the seasonal sales area. They are products that they
have difficulty maintaining adequate quantities of to meet the
demand of the customers. He presented sales information regarding
the sales amounts of a variety of products.
Mr. Taber stated that looking at the video of the Maplewood store,
he agreed that it is embarrassing. It is a pre`ty ugly eyesore;
and he committed that he wo.uld not have that kizd of eyesore here
in Fridley. He stated that whoever was in charge of inerchandising
at the Maplewood store over ordered or didn't care what items
looked like. What he proposes to do is to create a single level
of inerchandise so as to not create an eyesore and make it easy for
the customer to shop.
Mr. Taber stated that the garden center sales window is very short
in Minnesota when compared to California where he is from. That
is the reason that they are askinq for only a temporary sales
permit. He stated that he had difficulty finding a.good variety
of items at othex stores, Home Depot and K-Mart were the only
stores to have good varieties and selections of plant materials.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioners would be opposed to a
stipulation that limited the stacking of inerchandise to six feet
high.
Mr. Taber stated they would not be opposed to. that kind of
stipulation.
Ms. Modig asked what kind of security would be used.
Mr. Taber stated a rollaway gate with a chain lock on the outside.
Any losses that they may have are nominal. They also have lights
in the parking lot at night.
Ms. Modig stated she was more concerned with vandalism rather than
stealing. She was especially concerned with bags of materials
like manure or bark being broken and scattered around and possibly
ending up in the storm sewer.
Mr. Taber stated that a cyclone fence six feet in height would
discourage vandalism.
Ms. Savage asked why Home Depot stipulated that there would be no
outdoor sales of plant materials outside of the garden center and
2.05
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 18 1997 PAGE 6
are now before the Commission requesting additional garden sales
area.
Mr. Taber stated that Home Depot did not conceive what kind of
garden center demand there would be in a short period of time.
They simply cannot provide enough goods for the public for what
the demand is. He agreed that the existing garden center is huge,
• but it does not meet the demand of the customers.
Ms. Savage asked what Home Depot's reaction would be to the.
alternatives which are recommended by staff in terms of expanding
the garden center.
Mr. Taber stated that in the winter, the garden demands are almost
nonexistent. If Home Depot constructed another permanent
structure, it would be an additional cost for Home Depot to
maintain above and beyond the existing building. This would be a
negative in the profit and loss column.
Mr. Mosher stated that Home Depot is only asking to conduct the
seasonal sales during the "peak" demand time.
Ms. Savage stated that she understood that, but Home Depot was
asking far that to occur every year.
Mr. Saba asked if it was correct that the City does not allow
fertilizers and pesticides be stored outside, even if it was
covered. _
Ms. McPherson stated that was correct.
Mr. Taber stated that Home Depot would be flexible and keep
potentially hazardous items in the building to reduce their
environmental impact.
Mr. Saba stated that the Commission was concerned about the
environment and would like to limit possible contamination from
pesticides, herbicides and other like products.
Mr. Kondrick stated his concern was placing the structure in the
parking lot. The parking lot was designed for a certain number of
parking spaces. He was concerned by the loss of parking.
Mr. Mosher stated that Home Depot originally proposed a third
building in the northeast corner of the development. Home Depot
conceded this area to parking and therefore they have 86 spaces
extra. Even with the temporary garden sales structure, there
still is an additional number of spaces.
2.�6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 7
Ms. Savage asked if bags of topsoil just outside of the garden
center would be permitted. She stated that Lyndale Garden Center
stores its topsoil outside of its fence. She asked if this was
permitted.
Mr. Hickok stated that that is not permitted. No garden sales are
to occur outside of the confines of the garden center.
Ms. Savage asked for similarities or differences between the Home
Depot and Wal-Mart requests.
Ms. McPherson stated that the Wal-Mart store is required to sell
their garden material� either in the store or in the enclosed
garden center area. There have been several occasions where the
City had to remind Wal-Mart of those requirements.
Ms. Savage asked if the City allowed Wal-Mart to temporarily sell
merchandise in the parking lot.
Ms. McPherson stated that the City granted a temporary seasonal
sale in 1993. They sold plant materials and bagged items such as
topsoil and landscape rock and bark, but no fertilizers were
allowed outdoors. However, that was only for one year. Staff
required Wal-Mart to expand the permanent garden c�nter, which
they did in 1994.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the Wal.-Mart garden center had a roof over
it.
Ms. McPherson stated that it did not, however a portion of it had
a screening structure and that they.do erect a hoop house each
year.
Mr. Hickok pointed out that Wal-Mart was allowed a parking lot
sale in 1993 with their commitment to expand the permanent garden
center. Wal-Mart also experienced difficulty in merchandising
when they first came to Fridley. Merchandise woul.d be stored
outside in dropped trailers. Wa1-Mart constructed a permanent
screening enclosure in the rear of the store to screen this
merchandise. Outdoor storage and display at Wal-Mart are not
permitted.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there was the possibility of a five year
approval on this type of outdoor sales request. -
Ms. McPherson stated that would be within the City's ability to
place a time limit on such a request.
Mr. Hickok stated that it would be very important for the time
. z.o%
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 8
limit to be tied to a performance evaluation.
Mr. Saba stated he had a concern with past performance with Home
Depot. A stipulation was approved with the original special use
permit to not allow outside storage and display, but yet now there
is a request for additional outdoor display and sales. The City
had a difficult time getting Home Depot to remove their outdoor
displays of inerchandise. He wondered what kind of enforcement
would the City have if the request for temporary seasonal sales
was approved.
Mr. Hickok stated that was a concern of staff as well. He stated
that a recent inspection showed that outdoor storage, display, and
sales are happening now at this site. He is concerned about
follow-up enforcement and adherence to stipulations that have
already been placed on this property.
Mr. Saba stated that it would be wiser for the City to seek
performance first and then approve additional activity than to
approve the activity and seek compliance later.
Mr. Taber stated he has a clear understanding of how the City
feels and has every intention of following the City's regulations.
He stated that when he first arrived at the store, it was a mess
both inside and outside. He stated he would be happy to listen to
any issues or concerns the City may have. He was unable to commit
to a specific length of time.
Mr. Saba,stated that the Commission was somewhat embarrassed by
the performance of Home Depot after the Commission had fought long
and hard over the objections of staff and the neighbors to approve
the project. This approval was based on commitments made by Home
Depot corporate representatives.
Mr. Mosher stated that he was involved in the earlier approval
process and that Home Depot is.a young company that is still
evolving. He stated that the original stipulations committed to
by the real estate departments were not communicated well to the
store managers.
Mr. Taber stated that when they are allowed to have merchandise
outdoors, they can become very aggressive. It almost becomes a
carnival-like atmosphere with children building birdhouses or
planting trees.
Ms. Modig had a question about parking spaces. She stated in the
staff report it stated that a significant amount of parking spaces
would be occupied by the structure, but by the petitioner's
figures the parking would be more than ample. It is a
2.08
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 9
contradiction to each other.
Mr. Hickok stated the parking that would be impacted by the
proposed garden center area is four rows at 220 feet, with parking
stall width of ten feet, that would be 22 stalls times four, which
is eighty eight stalls to be taken away. He agreed that there is
a lot of parking, however, there is an open parking arrangement
with PetSmart to the north. He stated it is a combination of
issues that concerns staff and not merely numbers of stalls.
Staff is concerned with the appearance of the after thought of the
garden center in an area that was originally dedicated to parking.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated that she had a lot of concerns regarding this
request. She was concerned about the precedent the"Commission
would be establishing if they approved this request. They would
open the flood-gates to future seasonal parking lot sales.
Ms. Savage stated that there has been an effort to improve
Fridley's image, and`that outdoor parking lot sales are the
direction the city wants to go. She was pleased that Wa1=Mart was
•required to integrate their sales into the building.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the staff report mentions other-
communities where Home Depots are located. Not one community
alYows the request being asked by the petitioner. He questioned '
why Fridley was being singled out. He stated that if the
Commission approved the request, no outdaor storage of chemicals
should be allowed. He concurred with Ms. Savage's comments.
Mr. Saba stated that the commitment made by the.store manager
should be the commitment made by the CEO and in the mission
statement to respect community rules, regulations, and
requirements. He stated that he was concerned about what would
happen in the future. He would vote no until he could see some
performance and commitment by the corporate level to the
agreements previously made.
Mr. Oquist stated that he agreed with Ms. Savage's comments
regarding precedent. He was also concerned with the fact that the
Commission was being asked to approve something today that would
not be implemented until next year. He too would like to see
improved.performance and commitment to previous stipulations prior
to granting additional activity on the site. The time frame for
2.09
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 10
this year is gone.
Ms. Modig stated that she agreed with the comments of the other
commissioners. She stated that this request is contrary to what
the city is trying to accomplish. Nothing from past history
supports the commitment the new store manager has made tonight.
MOTION, by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to the
City Council denial of Special Use Permit request, SP #97-02, by
Home Depot USA, to allow nurseries or garden centers which require
outdoor sales and storage on Lot l, Block l, Home Depot Fridley
Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE,.ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. DISCUSSION OF 1997-1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS
Ms. McPherson stated that the City is reguired to �,�pdate it's
Comprehen.sive Plan by December 31, 1998. To that end, the City
Council and Planning staff.have agreed upon a process to involve
resident input in the Comprehensive Plan process.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has been divided into seven planning
areas, and the Planning Commission will conduct a planning area
meeting for eaeh area from now until December 31, 1997. The first
planning area meeting will be conducted at the July l6, 1997
Planning Commission meeting: Prior to the planning area meeting,
a citizen survey will be mailed to the residents within each
planning area to gather input for the purposes of discussion at
the meeting.
Ms. McPherson reviewed the questions on the citizen survey.
Ms. McPherson stated that once the planning area meetings have
been completed, the Commission will begin work on reviewing the
existing Comprehensive Plan to determine if the goals, objectives,
and policy stated in the 1980 Plan are pertinent for the City
during the next ten years. A second set of planning area meetings
will occur in 1998 to review the comments gathered, the new goals
and policies established, and the overall vision for the next ten
years.
Ms. McPherson asked if there would be any scheduling conflicts.
Commissioners Savage and Kuechle indicated that they would be
absent for the August 20, 1997 meeting.
Ms. Savage asked if all the residents in the area would be
2.10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 11
contacted.
Ms. McPherson stated that would be correct.
Mr. Oquist asked when the first survey would be mailed.
Ms. McPherson stated the first mailing would go out June 27, 1997.
Mr. Kuechle asked to see a copy of the survey form. The survey
form was passed to the commission members.
Mr. Oquist asked if business owners could respond even if they
were not residents.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Mr. Saba suggested that staff ask about more general problems in
their neighborhood.
Mr. Oquist suggested asking parallel questions about the
neighborhood and the city.
Ms. McPherson stated that the purpose of the survey was to
determine issue areas as opposed to site specific complaints.
Ms. Modig asked about the Values First Neighborhood Signs.
Ms. McPherson explained the Values First Program.
�Mr. Saba suggested that a Values First banner s�ould hang behind
the Council bench.
Mr. Oquist asked why staff is using essay versus ranking question.
Ms. McPherson stated that the City Manager will be doing a ranking
survey in the fall. The essay questions allow the residents to be
more expansive and to determine what is important to them. In a
ranking survey, staff would need to determine what were the
important questions to ask.
3. VIDEO PRESENTATION OF 1998 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Ms. McPherson stated that Barbara Dacy, Community Development
Director, for the June 2, 1997 City Council Conference meeting
regarding the 1998 budget prepared a nine minute video
presentation regarding the Community Development Department's 1998
Goals & Objectives.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff felt the Planning Commission would
2.1 i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18 1997 PAGE 12
be interested in reviewing such a video and is prepared to present
a video this evening.
The Planning Commission watched the video presentation regarding
the 1998 Community Development Department's Goals & Objectives.
Mr. Kuechle asked what a Point of Sale Ordinance was.
Ms. McPherson stated that a Point of Sale Ordinance would require
all homes to be inspected at the time of their sale. The
ordinance may require reporting only, correction of hazardous
items only, or correction of all items noted as deficient.
Mr. Saba stated that the video indicated development of a city
brochure. He indicated a good example of a city brochure would be
Maple Grove's city brochure.
4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF MAY 8, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes
of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of May 8, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSTON MEETING OF MAY 20, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechl.e, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting
of May 20, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY
28, 1997
MOTIOI3 by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of May 28, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT ;
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the
meeting.
2.12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 13
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AL�, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TAE
MOTION CARRIED AND T$E JUNE 18, 1997 PLANNING CONII�lISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 9:28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
_ , ,. �
T 1;;� I ��-�i�� !� ����1 �� �_:���-� ,� l,_f<<. ,
Michele McPherson
Staff Liaison to the Commission
2.13
0
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMIgSION MEETING, Gtednesday, June ]8, I997
2.14
(
CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner, Karl Foster, �equests that a special use permit be granted to allow construction
of a second accessory structure. The petitioner is proposing a 24' x 24' garage with a living
space addition to his existing dwelling unit. The petitioner is also required to process a
variance as the existing dwelling is located six feet from the north property line as opposed to
the required ten feet.
Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a second accessory
structure over 240 square feet.
I Located on the property is a 26' x 30' garage which was constructed in 1996. The petitioner's
' new garage would then be conside�ed the second accessory structure even though it is
attached to the dwelling unit. The new garage will be arehitecturally compatible with the
dwelling since they are connected. Both structures, the "old" garage and the new
construction, should be compatible. A hardsurface driveway to the proposed garage and
between the proposed and existing garages will be required. The garages may not•be used
as part of a home occupation. The proposed garage does not create an adverse increase in
lot coverage nor does it exceed the total maximum square footage of all accessory structures
(1,400 square feet).
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to allow
� a second accessory structure with the following stipulations:
1. The existing and proposed garages and dwelling shall be architecturally compatible.
2. The accessory structures shall not be used for a home occupation
3. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveways to the proposed and existing garages
by July 31, 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the
City Council as recommended by staff.
I CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action.
�t�l�
Project Summary
SP #97-05, by Karl Foster
Page 2
Petition For:
Location of
Property:
Legai Description
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
PROJECT DETAILS
A special use permit to allow a second accessory structure
over 240 square feet.
6654 East River Road N.E.
Part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23
80' x 150'; 12,400 square feet
Flat
Sod, trees, garden
R-1, Single Family Dwelling; Revised Auditor's Subdivision
No. 23
Connected
East River Road
East River Road bikeway on east side
None
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this
location.
To be taken
3.02
Project Summary
SP #97-05, by Karl Foster
Page 3
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
ADJACENT SITES:
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
The petitioner, Karl Foster, requests that a special use permit be granted to allow
construction of a second accessory stn.icture. The petitioner is proposing a 24' x 24'
attached garage with a living space addition to his existing dweiling unit. The petitioner
is also required to process a variance as the existing dwelling is located �six feet from
the north property line as opposed to the required ten feet.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The subject parcel is located on East River Road one block north of Mississippi Street.
Located on the property is a single family dwelling measuring 24' x 36' and constructed
in 1928. Also located on the property is a garage constn�cted in 1996 measuring 26' x
30'. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, with additional single family
homes to the west and north. The dwellings to the west are located on "flag" lots.
Located to the south of the subject property are the East River Road Apartments.
ANALYSIS
Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a second
accessory structure over 240 square feet.
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 30' living area addition to the existing
dwelling. In addition, an attached 24' x 24' two-car garage is proposed. The proposed
garage will be located in front of the garage constructed in 1996 and wilt have an
overhead door in the rear wall to allow the drive-through of vehicles. The prQposed
garage and living space addition in combination with the existing garage does not
increase the lot coverage over 25% of the lot area. In addition, the combined garages
are less than the 1,400 square feet allowed under Section 205.07.01.6.(1) of the City
3.03
Project Summary
SP #97-05, by Karl Foster
Page 4
Code. Typical stipulations for similar requests include architectural compatibility
befinreen structures, provisions of hardsurfaces, and no use of the garage for a home
occupation. The proposal does not adversely impact the adjacent properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to
allow a second accessory structure with the following stipulations:
1. The existing and proposed garages and dwelling shall be architecturally compatible.
2. The accessory structurES shalt not be used for a home occupation.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveways to the proposed and existing
garages by July 31, 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to
the City Council as recommended by staff.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action.
3.04
,
.
/
,
/
` �
'� � 1
� 1
'""°,�,,�„ /
�R,�
,
� �
I
` I
�� -
�
.� .
��
P;
�
�
�.
,.
.
► /
�
�
�
�
�
�
R3
y, •��
��
�
�
� _ .
�
/ ,___:-
� • ---- _�
� P
.
:�
�
�
� `
�� ,
,
� -.
�
► ,
� ��
��v�� �
:
.•
. �.
�
� ��; �
.
.
. �
.
�
•
.
�:
. c2
�
_ � �� - � ��.v.
` -�� � -,� d. ` ,�- _
,p�vrE � r�ssss
�
, . ��'_;�� ..
��"�`� � C
� ��- —
�� o r
�
r � u
� _, �
► ♦ �
'�
`
r
:
za,�� o�«,�:
o�z =� F�" � SP #97-05, 6654 East River Road
� R 3- C�s�er-al AA�Ifiple Units
0 R-4 - Nbbile Horre Parks
��"° -�""` °�°�"� This request, by Karl Foster,
� s, - M� �a�c n�iyr,e«►,00d
� s2 - �o�x a�a
o G� -� �� is to allaw a seoond garage.
0 c2 - c� a,��
= G3 -� �� The petitioner proposes to
� GR1- Ger�'al Office
��-' -'�'�� build a 24 x 24 foot
0 nk2 - �n i�,d�t��
� nn-3 - a,�d� i�� �y i�,d. i
��_��„� i attached garage with an
o�, �''°F�'rt`� ' addition to the ho se. �
j � Poqif-0E-WAY L--- --- ------�-�i'�--- --�
�
_
_
�►�1
�
.�
�
�
�
�
N
A I
2/'IBJ97
Compi�ed and dran�n irom otfiaal reoads based
«, a�a� n�. �o �,a �� n� �
date 1rz7�5stogetl�vwtli al� ame�id. ord�
araes adopted and effecti�re as oF ?J1�19l.
�������,���m�
vide u,e most up-rodate inf«maa«, a�ailable.
7he data pne,se�ed here is s�ject eo d,arxx�ee.
The City of Fridley will not be resporsible for
tr�or� errors or usage of this doair�rt.
E���I�
SP ��97-
Kar1 Fo
L
�
�' '
� �
� _�,
,��Q}
�:,
�
�
� �
�
�-
�er
�
V
�
�
Q �
�� �
�
��i
J _ _ _ -
. �
� \ /
�� .
�_._._ ..' "._ _ ... . _ .
�^ �
, ' `L t
� ^� � � �'
� t L �
+ ,a ' , ,a y
� 1 ;�
, } i- 'r_. � r.
� ,j .! � s
, -� .. _ _ :
' � 1 (�� . _ °�-
'`�
�
` .
,
i/
_�
�.
.�.
V
.:�
� �7"
�,_ ___----- ----- �"
.
za�so3 I???I _
.,,� �� _
SO-L6�� dS '
t
1
«:
,^
�
a, i
_-�
;�`.�
�
;
�.�
� ��
,�
�
�
�`
._. _ .: . :�: � � . .. f
:� :._�.; �i} � :
O v "1
- �) ..: �/�-
:<1 � f V � �
.%) � •� �
i�J � � , , t � j'�
'� :^i L� � �. _
_�.�� >�-�
�� � �
� � �
�� ��, �� � ,,
�� J ��E}
'"3
�J��� �.
_� 4�
} � � 1. :
. �� } . l�,� '�
� ��
� vi � '��
li} .Cs � z '�' l ..
t! � •'j! � ,$, �:i� i
yn � !— � ;.
�- � y S � 1;
� �'- • }— ��..�. `.
�:����
-�- ��,
J , —r -
� 1 n � -� t
� � v �~
= � �� --�� �}.� �
? Z 'G �
2 � r
N�� a �
" LS. L! � T .
_' -,� �? �-' � .,i` •
. t�.' , _ � pC' �.. �:
�� -Y� 9 �,.
,�
�f� ,� � 4 Z 4 �.
Li � 7'� -�} `
�� ��.
�; J Sd. � :
; �_ . � �� �., . � .
�;y�ijLU' _.
'...�- ,.� L!i 2 �
� �'� r z �-- i.:
}-- �t1 "� !` �
. , j �; a-. � :
s � `� w '
` � `� Z � i
;�1 -Z.�� ,
__� ��- (— �: _1 :
SP ��97-OS
Karl Foster
3.08
�1-1
�� �
_ � �
� ~ \
�--� �� `°
�
�
�
�,
�i��
n-1�
�, �
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULy 16, 1997 PAGE 14
- What is a Star City and why is Fridley not desig�ed as one
and surrounding communities are.
Ms. Savage read responses to the question, "What ole or roles
does Fridley play in the larger Minneapolis/St. aul region?"
- Small, safe, convenient home town; sho d be considered an
increasingly attractive place to liv .
- Second rinq suburb, convenient loc ion.
- Good residential housing for entr�y level home owners.
- A second ring suburb with a hist�ry of various, diverse
housing, mostly known as a bl -collar suburb..
- Keep the level of living hig , not go down hill as the metro
area moves out. Multiple ellings are not the answer.
- Make it a safe place to �ve, more patrols by police.
- A mini-city, support t� he large metro area. Continue
supporting the Wolves/!
- The emphasis on news/programs seems like you only hear about
bad things. �
Ms. McPherson stated he information the surveys and the comments
will be passed on t the advisory commissions, the City Gouncil
and the HRA. The ommissions will be working on individual
chapters of the mprehensi�e Plan and making recommendations for
new goals and o'ectives and policies for the next plan. Once a
draft document is prepared and some ideas to share, residents wiil
be invited to a second meeting which will be held some time next
year.
Ms. McCue asked if, on the sign in the lobby, that is how staff is
going t go about checking. She also expressed concern about
person speeding on McKinley and felt that speeds are often 40 to
45 mi es per hour.
Ms� McPherson stated yes. Staff will be passing the specific
cational concerns on to the appropriate departments and staff
ersons. The meeting for area 2 is set for August 20.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST, SP #97-OS, BY KARL FOSTER:•
Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow construction of a second accessory structure over 240
square feet (23.25 feet x 23.75 feet), on that part of Lots 7
and 9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23, generally
located at 6654 East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing_
3.09
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PA6E 15
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:50 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use
permit to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet.
The petitioner is proposing a second garage measuring 23.25 feet x
23.75 feet which is proposed to be attached to the dwelling and is
part of an addition to the dwelling. The property is located on
East River Road. It is north of the East River Road apartments
and near the Mississippi River. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family, as are the surrounding propert.ies. The apartment property
is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. Currently located
on the property is a single family dwe�llina with a detached
garage. The existing dwelling measures 24 feet x 30 feet. The
existing garage measures 26 feet x 30 feet. The petitioner is
proposing a 14 foot x 30 foot addition to the dwelling and is
proposing the 23 foot x 23 foot garage.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed garage is in conjunction with
t�'1e auC�lti0i7 �O *�i.ii2 uW2i.1.1i7C�. iiic Niv�,GS2u �c�inyc -wlii .ric �GCu�cu
in front of the detached garage. The petitioner is proposing an
overhead door in the rear of the attached-garage in order to allow
access to the detached garage.
Ms. McPherson stated typical stipulations on requests such as this
one incl.ude no_home occupations in the accessory structure(s),
architectural compatibility between structure(s), and provision
for hardsurf.ace driveway(s). In this request we would require a
hard surface driveway between the two garages in addition to the
proposed garage. The total combined garage square footage is less
than the maximum permitted by code of 1400 square feet. The total
proposed by the petitioner between the existing and proposed
garages will be 1332.19 square feet. The request does not
increase the permitted lot coverage over the maximum 25o allowed.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request for
a special use permit with the following stipulations:
l. The existing and proposed garages and dwelling shall.be
architecturally compatible_
2. The accessory structures shall not be used for a home
occupation.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveways to the
proposed and existing garages by June 31, 1993.
Ms. McPherson stated staff did not receive any calls or comments
r_egarding this request.
3.10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PAGE 16
Ms. Savage asked if a variance was also needed.
Ms: McPherson stated yes. The addition to the dwelling in order
to use the existing foundation does require a variance. The north
wall is currently at 6 feet from the lot line as opposed to the 10
feet required by code. The petitioner is proposing to extend the
line of nonconformity. The Appeals Commission did recommend
approval of the variance request. They voted 2-1 to recommend
approval to the City Council. The dissenting vote was not due to
the requested variance, but rather to the stipulation. The
special use permit request,and variance request will go before the
City Council on July 28. �
Mr. Foster asked where staff got the measurements for the garage.
He thought the plans were for a 24 foot x 24 foot garaqe. That is
more standard. Other than that he had no questions.
Ms. McPherson stated she got those measurements from the drawings
, tti:dt were sub:r�itted. The m2asurements Caii be adj i.isted priOt' t0
the City Council meeting.
Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner if he understood the
stipulations and if he had any problems with those stipulations.
Mr. Foster stated the addition to the house as well as the
existing house will all be done in the same style. The cement
work will be done at the time they put in the foundation and slab
for the garage. It will all be done at the same time.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner understood that the garage
shall not be used for a home occupation.
Mr. Foster stated he would like more information regarding this.
Over the top of the attached garage will be a room for a hobby
room. His fiance does upholstery work. He asked if that would be
considered as a home occupation.
Ms. McPherson stated the definition defines permitted home
occupations as any occupation or profession engaged in by the
occupant of the dwelling unit and carried out in the unit and not
within an accessory structure. Permitted home occupations would
be professional offices, minor repair services, photo or art
studios, dressmaking, teaching or similar uses.
Mr. Foster stated the upholstery work will be done as part of his
hobby of renovating and restoring classic cars and building street
rods.
3.11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PAGE 17
Ms. McPherson stated, in that case, that is within the code
requirements.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval
of Special Use Permit, SP #97-OS, by Karl Foster, to allow
construction of a second accessory structure over 240 square feet
(23.25 feet x 23.75 feet), on that part of Lot:s 7 and 9, Revised
Auditor's Subdivision No. 23, generally located at 6654 East River
Road N.E., with the following stipulations:
l. The existing and proposed garages and dwelling shall be
architecturally compatible.
2. The accessory structures shall not be used for a home
occupation.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveways to the
proposed and existing garages by June 31, 1993.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMpUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will consider this request
on July 28.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT QUEST, L.S.
#97-01, BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER:
To split 20 feet from the adjacent proper at 670 Dover
Street N.E. and add it to the Maher's p operty to make a
larger rear yard, on Lots 16, 17, 18,� 9, 20, and 21, except
that portion of Lots 20 and 21 desr�ribed as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corn�r of Lot 21, thence
southwesterly on the north lir�e�of said Lot 21 a distance of
40 feet; thence southeaster�� and parallel with the easterly
line of Lots 20 and 21 to�t`he south line of Lot 20; thence
easterly on the south �fie of said Lot 20 a distance of 40
feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 20; thence
northwesterly on t�te�easterly line of said Lots 20 and 21 to
the point of commencement, all in Block W, Riverview Heights,
generally loca��ed at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E.
�
MOTION by Mr. S�a, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading
of the public earing notice and to open the public hearing.
3.12
CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner, Karl Foster, requests that a variance be granted to reduce the side yard setback from
10 feet to 6 feet due to an existing encroachment. If approved, the petitioner will construct an addition
and a two-car attached garage to the existing dwelling. The petitic;ner is also processing a special use
permit to allow a second accessory structure over 240 sq. ft: '
STATED HARDSHIP:
"To use existing foundation that is 6 feet from the property line to qualify for 'This Old House' Frogram"
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Section 205.07.03.D.2.(a) requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living area and side
property line.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in
adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent stnactures to reduce the
possibility of �re and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures.
The petitioner stated in his "hardship statement" that he desires to use the existing home and its
foundation in order to qualify for the "This Old House" deferred tax program. The petitioner is
proposing a substantial addition to the existing dwelling inGuding a expansion of the wall which
encroaches into the required side yard setback. As an alternative, the petitioner could reconstruct the
dwelling which would then eliminate an opportunity for tax deferment. The petitioner must maintain
50% of the existing structure to qualify for the program. The dwelling is separated from the dwelling to
the north by an Amur Maple hedge. There is approximately 35 feet between this structure and the
living area of the dwelling to the north.
The request is within previously granted variances. No comments have been received from adjacent
property owners.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION:
As the request is within previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation for the Appeals
Commission. Staff, however, recommends one stipulation if the request is approved:
1. If the petitioner cannot maintain 50% of the existing structure, the structure shall
be brought into conformance with the 10 foot setback requirement.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION:
The Appeals Commission voted 2-1 to recommend approval of the request to the Gity Council with one
� stipulation:
1. If the petitioner cannot use the existing foundation, the structure shall be brought
into conformance with the 10 foot setback requirement:
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission action,
4.01
Project Summary
VAR #97-10, 6654 East River Road
Page 2
PROJECT DETAILS �
Petition For: A variance to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet
Location of
Property: 6654 East River Road
Legal Description
of Property: Part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #23
Size: 80 feet by 150 feet; 12,400 square feet
Topography: Flat
Existing
Vegetation: Sod, trees, garden
Existing
Zoning/Platting: R-1, Single Family; Revised Auditor's Subdivision #23
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities: Connected
Vehicular
Access: East River Road
Pedestrian
Access: East River Road bikeway on east side
Engineering
Issues: None
Comprehensive The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent at this
Planning Issues: loeation.
Public Hearing
Comments: To be taken
4.02
Project Summary
VAR #97-10, 6654 East River Road
Paqe 3
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
ADJACENT SITES:
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST:
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
The petitioner, Karl Foster, requests that a variance be granted to reduce the side yard
setback from 10 feet to 6 feet due to an existing encroachment. If approved, the
petitioner will constn.ict an addition and a finro-car attached garage to the existing .
dwelling. The petitioner is also processing a special use permit to allow a second
accessory structure over 240 sq. ft.
SITE DESCRIPTI.ON/HISTORY:
The subject property is located on East River Road, north of River Road East
Apartments. It is surrounded on all sides by R-1, Single Family zoning. Located on the
property is a single family dwelling constructed in 1928 measuring approximately 24
feet by 36 feet. Also located on the property is a garage constructed in 1996 measuring
26 feet by 30 feet. The property is enclosed by vegetation along the north and west
property lines. There are single family homes on "flag" shaped lots to the west adjacent
to the river and to the north. The subject property is separated from the property to the
west by evergreen trees and native vegetation.
ANALYSIS:
Code Section
Section 205.07.03.D.2.(a) requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living
area and side property line.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between
living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in
adjacent structures to reduce the possibility of fire and to allow for aesthetically pleasing
open areas around residential structures
4.03
Project Summary
VAR #97-10, 6654 East River Road
Paqe 4
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14 foot by 30 foot living area addition to the
existing dwelling. A 24 foot by 24 foot two-car attached garage is also proposed. As
the new garage will be located in front of the garage constructed in 1996, an overhead
door is proposed in the rear of the new garage to allow the drive-through of vehicles.
The petitioner stated in his "hardship statemenY' that he desires to qualify for the "This
Old House" deferred program (see attached handouts). This program applies to
improvements made to homes 35 years of age or older. As the petitioner is proposing
to substantially reconstruct the existing dwelling, allowing the foundation and north wall
of the dwelling to remain allows the petitioner to qualify for the deferment program.
The petitioner is required to maintain 50% of the structure. This request is similar to
Paul Litwincz;uk's request at 6299 Centra! Avenue where setback variances were
granted to allow the existing foundation to be reused for a new dwelling. Mr.
Litwinczuk, however, found that the foundation could not be used and built a new house
meeting the setback requirements. If Mr. Foster cannot maintain 50% of the existing
structure, it should be moved to meet the setback requirement.
The petitioner does not propose to encroach any further than the original
encroachment. He is, however, proposing to fill in portions of the exisfing dwelling to
provide closet space and a second bathroom for the completed home (see attached
floor plan). The north wall of the dwelling is screened from the adjacent property to tk�e
north by a tall hedge composed of Amur Maples and lilacs. The dwellings are
approximately 35 feet apart.
The variance request is within previously granted requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION:
As the request is within previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation for
the Appeals Commission. Staff, however, recommends one stipulation if the request is
approved:
If the petitioner cannot maintain 50% of the existing structure, the
structure shall be brought into conformance with the 10 foot setback
requirement.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 2-1 to recommend approval of the request to the City Council
with one stipulation:
4.04
Project Summary
VAR #97-10, 6654 East River Road
Paqe 5
4. If the petitioner cannot use the existing foundation, the structure shall be
brought into conformance with the 10 foot setback requirement.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission action.
4.05
♦
/,
I
1
��
� r� � � �
� '
�+ae,M,w �
�R,�
1
• �
/
1 �� �
::, ,
•, ,
�,
P.: ,. ,
,
� ;
�
�'"' � ,
_:
�
.
�
�
�
�,�� o�«�:
� F�1 - a,e Fan:y Units -
C] F�-2 - Two Fartily Urrts
(� f�3 - General Mltiple Uryts
� F�4 - Nbbiie Home Parlcs
� PUD - Plarxied Urrt De�eloprr�nt
� �, -��►��
[� S2 - Redevelopmert Distrid
oG, -���
� c2 - c�,� e��
G3 - General SFx�ping
� GR1- General Office
� nMi - �nc i�,a���
0�.2 -���;�
nn3 - oudoor �ntensi„e f-lea�,y �rxi.
� � - ���
� P - Public Fadlities
o ��
0 Poc�ir-oF vuAY
�
�
i
i
�
,
�
R3
•.,
�-
I
/ ------ --�
I
�-- --J
1
P
,
,
; �
� Po�����
� �
� ,�,•
. �
. �
�
.
.
:�
�
•
_ .- _
,- v
��C
�� . . :� .:.¢ • ��r
•
a� WAV� �
,
�
RT�
M�q
� ,
�'� .
� �
�
�
�r
, �, � v
♦
�
�. !
.
�,:
VAR #97-10, 6654 East River Road
This request, by Karl Foster,
is to reduce the side yard
setback from 10 feet to
6 feet to allow construction
of a 14 x 30 foot addition to
an existing housed ��
�♦
����
1''
.v
�
.�—
�
�
�
�
�
�
-
�:��
�
...
N
A I
C.orrpiled arxi dran�n fran offlcial nacorrJs based
on Ordinanoe No. 70 �d Zoning Nlap e{fectiv�e
dake 1/27/56 togetF� with all arr�endng orcfin-
anoes adopted and effective as of 2I171'97.
The CiIY of FrideY tras taken every e#fort to prr� ,
vide the most up-to-date i�tion available.
The dad-a preser�ted hene is subjed fi� charx,7e.
The City of Fridey will not be respor�sible for
ur�or� errrxs or usage aF this doa�►r�rt.
1
�� ::.i _ _-- -- -- - - - L�,;• ' �� _ _ _ _ _ _ -- =- -KAR �� 9 7 -10
�'� � arl�� �'oster
�. .
�
� .
c— _ __- - .__-._ _.._. . -_-= - - -
�,. - - . .. _ q
/ �. : '
� ; � � =. � � a
� � � � � .
.`� 1 � 2 �1 Q 3� . :
`' 1 `-� t:i�:�:� a ;
r:- 3
� � , �� ;� t� 4� � �
' � ---- -- ---- -- — � � --- - - -- ------- ---- � ��
i
1
, -� - -- �
.,
i� .
�
�� � .
N,
J� 1
,� �
�� '
L 5.� .
S
:j ::
� i=
-� �
�:
�d �
> �=
n ?4
f--+ F'
i'J-'.� �
a �:
� � .
�
�
. . . . J � ..��.
� :.1 a
, t
y.�
� r
)�
-� � �
� �J
: � _
. � % �� � � � ..�f
4 �-» L.
'" 'J 1F_
i , " .. ct
`�"� � � ;�;
}
_ � � �:
. =1�� � _'
Li- cU
� �
�,
t,.. •.:;
� � �
,.ti.r .�
u.. :.�:
!- `"_:
�i u
�
� rK.
4 � >
__.1
Q' '- :.
� ; ;:
!1[ ;�
� �-
VAR 1i97-10
Karl Foster
� _d.:� ;
,,:
(.11
N� z �
^ � v--
v� �
L�(`� `°�
�
,
��
� �
�
��
�
.�
�
�
�
0
F
�
�
�
Z
a
4.09
�
�
,
�
�
�Z
�
�-
VAR l'� 9
Karl Fo ter �
v
�
� ,
� �
t� (�L
:
0
�
�,
`� ,
��
�
�
DORTOH9�1
Exemption From The �'roperty Tax Of Improvements
Made To Homes 35 Years Of Age 4r Olcier
Read the foltowing information before completing the application for exemption from the property tax of
improvements made to homes 35 years of age or older.
Minnesota la�v encourages property o�tmers to restore or renovate their older homes. This la�v, commonly referred to as
"This Old House" exempts from the propert�� tax all or a portion of the value of improvements made to homes 35 years of
age or older.
; ;: ;: ,.
;
,:
' TYPES �F PROP;ERTY ELTGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION :
... .. ...: .. .... . .. . ........ ..... .:. .. .
In order to be eligible for exemption, the propert}• must meet the follo���ing three criteria:
l. Propertv must be 35 years of age or older at the time the improvements commence.
2. Propert}� must be receiving the homestead classification. This includes property classified as residential homestead
(including dupleYes and triplezes) blind/paraplegic veteran/disabled homestead and agricultural homestead. Relative
homesteads are eligible for the exemption.
3. The total market value of the propert�� must be less than $I50,000 (residential: land and buildings; agricultural:
house/garage/1 acre). In special circumstances, a property ���ith a total market value of $1�0,000 or more but less than
$300,000 ma_y qualify for the e�emption. In these instances, your assessor �t�ill help ��ou determine if your property is
eligible for the e�emption. Properties ���ith a total market value of $300,000 or more do not qualify. for the eaemption.
If }�our propert�� is a condominium and your living unit is receiving the homestead classification, an�� improvements made
to ihe unit �t�ould qualifi� for the esemption. Impro��ements to common areas are not eligible. If }�our property is a duplex
or triplex and it is receiving the homestead classification, improvements made to an�� portion of the property qualify .for the
exemption from the property tas. If your propert}• is used as a homesteld and for a non-residential use; the eaemption
applies only to improvements made to the residential portion of the property receivin� the homestead ctassification. For
example, if your property is used both for a residence and for a business, the exemption applies onl}� to the improvements
made to the homesteaded residential portion of your property.
.. ::.. -.. . .: .... , ...
. ;:,.:::::::::>; _
:.. . , ,�
:.:.:;;;; .:.::.; _ : �'YP�S OF.iA�pRC3VEl�iENTS;THAT;QU�LiFY F0�2'C'I-�E �ENiPTYON ��....._� ...............
Onlv improvements that contribute a minimum value of $1,000 or more to the house or garage of a property classed as�
homestead during the year of the improvement qualify for the e�emption from the property tax. This includes improvements
such as additions to the existing house and garage, expansion of the existing house and garage, restoring, remodeling or
upgrading of the e�isting house, addition of a porch or deck. or construction of a ne�v garage. Please note that the area
qualifying for construction of a garage is limited to 600 square feet.
_ _ _ __ _
;
>;:::.: : � >::: : ::.:;.: ;: : »: : : : :.. : : >;;
;:;: :;::;:;:>:::;<, >:>: TYPES;OF TIVIPRQVEMENTS THA'Y` b0 NQT UAL.TF'�' FO .R;�XEIVIPT ON ...
:: .. ....: . .::. ..::.:.:::: .. : .......
..:.::::....:..:.. . : . . . ...:. . . . ...:.... ................:.. ...
........_._ ..............._:.:..:... ._.....:.::::....�. ...:.:::::::::::::::::.::.�.�.�::..::::::::::.::.
Improvements made to the site surrounding the home do not qualify for exemption: This includes such improvements to the
site as: construction of a fence, construction of a drive�ra��, installation of a la���n sprinkler s}�stem, installation of a
s�t�imming pool or tennis court, landscaping of the grounds, agricuitural buildings.
If more than 50 percent of the square footag� of a house is torn down or razed, the original house is deemed to no
longer exist, and any subsequent improvements made to the remaining structure are considered to constitute the construction
of a new house. As a result, the value of anv improvements �ti�ould not qualify for exemption.
If any combination of improvements double the original size of the structure, am� improvement that further increases the
size of the structure �vill not qualify for exemption.
< , , ;<
�A.LUE I,�MZTATiONS : <
,. . : ,... _
There is a limit to the dollar value of the improvement wl�ich may be exempted. The limit depends on the age of the
propertv. Houses that are less than 35 years of age do not qualif��. Houses that ai-e at least 35 years of ahe but less
ttian 70 years are limited to one-half of the value of the improvement up Io a ma�imum e�emption uf $2�,000. Houses
that are 70 years of age or older are eligible to have the total value of an}� improvements exempted up to a maximurr� of
��0,000. The age of the house is based upon the number of ��ears that the qualif}�ing residence has existed on its �resent
site.
4.10
_
C�TY OF
FRIDLEY
PRIDLEY MUN[CIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55�132 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
Dear HomeownEr,
The St�zte Legislature; in its
from the property tax all or a
made to homes 35 years of �ge
the Omnibus Tax Bill).
1993 session, passed a law to exempt
partion of the value of improvements
or older (Article 5, section 13 of
This exemption applies to improvements made to homesteads any time
during the ten-year period beginning January 3, 1993 and ending
January 2, 2003. The exemption may be.applied to no more than
three separate improvements made to the house and garage. The
exemption for the value of an improvement remains in.effect for 10
years beginning with the initial asse�sment year in which the
im�rovement contributed to th� value of the house or garage. After
the ten year period has expired, the exempt portion is reduced each
year by one-fifth -- or 20 percent and added back into the taxable
value of .the property. By the end of the fifteenth year the full
value of the improvement is subject to the property tax.
Once an improvement has been designated for exemption, it cannot be
repealed or replaced by a later improvement.
Attached is an application for this exemption. To find out if your
new improvement quali�ies please fill in the areas marked by the X
on the applieation and return to the City of Fridley, Assessor's
Department.
If you have any questions, please phone us at 573-3537.
SiMCerely,
Fridley Assessor's Offic.e
4.11
CITY OF FRiDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETIIVG, JULY 9, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Kuechle called the July 9, 1997, Appeais Commission
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent
-• ' Others Present:
Larry Kuechle, Carol Bea
Terrie Mau
Vos
Michele McPhers , Planning Assistant
John & Joette mbal, 6821 7th Street N.E.
Jim & Dian achymowski, 6820 7th Street N.E.
Joyce J nson, 6831 7th Street N.E.
Kari ster & Teris Dupre, 6654 East River Road
to o�der at
MOTION by s. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos; to approve the June 25, 1997, Appeais
Commiss' minutes as written.
1.
I� A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BY KARL FOSTER:
- - - • ' ' "' ` "' "��Fh�v�-c Kt UEST VAR #97-10
Per Section 205.07.03.D.2.(a) of the Fridiey Zoning Code, to reduce the side yard
setback from 10 feet to 6 feet to allow the constn.�ction of a 14 foot by 32 foot
addition on that part of Lots 7& 9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23, generaliy
iocated at 6654 East River Road.
MO_ by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE OECLARED
THE MOTlON CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the Variance Request is to reduce the side yard setback from 10
feet to 6 feet. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14 foot x 30 foot addition to the
existing dwelling located on the property_ In addition, a 24 foot x 24 foot attached garage
is �;� �ooserf.
4.12
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETWG JULY 9 1997 PAGE 2
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located north of Mississippi Street and west of East
River Road. The East River Road Apartments are located just south of the subject
parcel. There are two single tamily dwellings located west of the petitioners prope�ty.
These are located on flag lots that abut the Mississippi River. There is also a single
family home directly no�th of the subject property. The subject parcel and the surrounding
properties are zoned R-1, Single Family. CuRently located on the property is a detached
garage measuring 26 feet x 30 feet and a single family dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's existing dwelling was constructed in 1952. The
petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the dwelling unit and an attached finro-
car garage. In the hardship statement, the petitioner states he would like to quality for the
"This Old House" tax deferment program by using a p�rtion of the existing dwelling: This
tax deferment program ap�lies to homes which �are 3�- years old or older and allows the
tax assessment for new additions and improvements to be deferred over a period of time
so that the property taxes do not immediately increase as a result of the improvements.
According to the State statute, a minimum of 50% of the existing stn.�cture must remain in
order to qualify for this program.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's proposa! would not increase the existing
encroachment. That portion of the dwelling that currently errcroaches is along the north
property line and is at 6 feet. The petitioner is proposing to extend the existing
encroachment. The proposed floor plan clea�ly shows the north wall of the dwelling, the
new closet which will extend the line of encroachment, the bathroom and addition living
space along the south portion of the existing dwelling, and the pcoposed two-car attached
garage. Using an aerial photograph, there is approximately 35 feet between the
petitioners dwelling and the dwelling to the north. They are also separated by a tall
hedge of Amur maples.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has no recommendation since the request is within previously
granted requests. Staff does recommend the following stipulation:
If the petitioner cannot maintain 50% of the existing structure, the structure shall be �
brought into conformance with the 10-foot setback requirement.
Mr. Kuechle asked, when referring to 50°/a of the existing structure in the stipulation, is
that 50% of the area or 50% of the value.
Ms. McPherson stated the statute states, "�f more than 50% of the squa�e footage of the
house is torn down or razed, the original house is deemed to no longer exist and any
subsequent improvements made to the �emaining structure are considered to constitute
the construction of a new house." As a result, the value of any improvements would not
qualify for the exemption.
Dr. �Jos sta'�� hr wanted to make sure he understood the stipulation. If the petitione�
was coming in and was not trying to go under this exemption and was just trying to build a
4.13
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETWG JULY 9 1997 PAGE 3
cioset on the north side of .his fi'oi�se, it seems that the stipulation is tied to the exemption
and not anything about a hardship.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Fosters hardship is based on the fact that he would like to use
the existing house and foundation in order to qualify for the tax defierment program. The
closest case for comparison is the Paul Litwinczuk case on Central Avenue. The City
granted a variance to the side ya�d in order to allow the existing foundation and part of
the existing house to remain. Once Mr. Litwinczuk dismantled the existing house and
looked at the structural stability of the foundation, he found he was not able to use the
existing dwelling. Therefore, he removed the entire dwelling and built a new house which
conforms to the setback requirement.
Dr. Vos asked if part of the stipulation is a protection for that.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes.
Mr. Foster stated the house was built in 1928. It appears that a building permif was taken
out in 1952 for a small addition to the house. He wants to use the existing foundation.
He has had the foundation inspected and it is good. He saw no reason to take out the
existing foundation and start over. He did not know how much of the above ground
house is up to standard, and he won't know that until they start tearing it apart.
Mr. Foster stated he talked to a number of people at the County about #he `This Old
House" program who talked to people at the state, and they are not sure that he will
qualify for the program because of the size of the addition. The square footage will be
very close. If he puts the upstairs 1oft on half, he has not heard if they would qualify. He
did not know if the second floor square footage was considered as part of it. The house
is 69 years old: If it is less than 70 years old which it is by 3 months, then it only qualifies
for 50°/a. If over 70 years old, it qualifies for 70%. He would like to use the foundation
that he has, and possibly the north and east walls. Other pa�ts may not be useable.
Some of the floor joists are 2 x 4's and he would like to bring those up to standard. He
will not know until they start tearing the house apart.
Mr. Foster stated that if he does not meet the 50% in the stipulation, then he will have to
tear out the foundation because the foundation is 6 feet from the property line.
Depending on the difference in cost, it may keep him from building. He wants to use the
foundation, because the foundation is haif of the house. He will try to use as much of the
old house as he can without adding a lot of extra expense. It is something that is going to
upgrade the neighborhood and help the community. The tax deferment is important but it
is secondary. It is more important to have a house that is safe to live in.
Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner had discussed his plans with the neighbor to the no�th.
Mr. �oster �-`atec± he talked to ihe neighbors across the street and behind. They did nc�t
have a problem it. He has talked with the neighbor to the no�th a few times. There is a
4.14
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9 1997 PAGE 4
hedge between the properties that is pretty well filled in. He cannot see the neighbors
house to the no�th.
Dr. Vos asked if the neighbor to the north was 35 feet away.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes. The dwelling to the north has a detached garage to the rear.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOT10N CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated they could say something in the stipulation �bout having to comply
with the setback if they cannot use the existing foundation.
Dr. Vos stated the stipulation does not say anything about the old house exemption. It
mostly fits because of the 50%.
Mr. Kuechle stated that is the standard n�le. If something is damaged or whatever to 50%
of the value, then it must be brought into compliance.
Dr. Vos stated he did not know what to do with the stipulation.
Mr. Kuechie stated he thought it could stay as it is. The petitioner is asking for the
variance because he wants to come under the "This Old House program". The rule in the
City is that if it is 50% or more damaged, it must be brought in compliance. Under that
basis, the stipulation should stand as is.
Ms. Beaulieu stated the petitioner is saying he does not know if he going to qualify, and
he wants to use the existing foundation as the reason or hardship.
Dr. Vos stated that if the petitioner is not thinking about qualifying for that program and
wanted to put in that closet, he did not think the Appeals Commission would say he would
need 50% of the house. It seems as though they are tying it to the addition.
Mr. Kuechle stated the general rule is, if the house is damaged or replaced to 50% or
more of its value, it then must be replaced.
Ms. McPherson stated the nonconforming section of the City Code states that if a
property is damaged to more than 50% of its value by an act of God that it must then be
brought into compliance.
Dr. Vos stated they were talking about 50°/a of the square footage.
Ms. McPherson stated the state statute talks about the area of the dwelling.
4.15
Ms. Beaulieu stated that if there is going to be a stipulation, it should say something to the
effect that, "if the house does not qualify under the state's definition for the `This Old
House' program, then it should be brought into conformance"_
Dr. Vos agreed. Otherwise the City wiil have to make a determination of whether or not it
is 50%. In general, he supports the request but the question is what to put in the
stipulation.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she did not think they should use that stipulation. If the petitioner can
use the foundation, that is an existing condition; it is 35 fee.t from the other house and
there is a barrier.
Mr. Kuechle s`ated that if the petitioner is going to tear the house down beyond 50%,
moving that waA �u� f�i�r feet is noi a great expense percentage-wise.
Dr. Vos stated the hardship is not based �on economics. It is based on the conditions of
the property, and he would consider the foundation a part of the property.
Mr. Foster stated that regarding the existing foundation, the Commission had talked about
moving the north wall in 4 feet. He would then have to move the rest of #he house over 4
feet as well. That would require taking out theJandscaping. Then he is too close on the
south end so he would have to revamp the plans to make it fit. !f he had an extra 4 feet of
yard, it would not do him any good because he has so much bnash there. There are
mature trees and shnabs and he does not want to take those out.
Ms. Beaulieu stated this is also � narrow lot.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve Variance Request, VAR #97-
10, by Kar! Foster, to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet to allow the
construction of a 14 foot by 32 foot addition on that part of Lots 7& 9, Revised Auditor's
Subdivision No. 23, generally located at 6654 East River Road, with the following
stipulation:
1- If the petitioner cannot use the existing foundation on the north side, then the
structure shall be brought into conformance with the 10 foot setback requirement.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she can see a hardship. It is existing. It is not interfering with
anything. The lot is narrow. The house is 35 feet from the neighbor.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, BEAULIEU AND VOS VOTING AYE, KUECHLE VOTING NAY,
CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY
VOTE.
M�. McPhe��on stated that because the vote was not unanimous, the request will go
before the City Council on July 28.
4.16
CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner, Monte Maher, requests that a loi split be granted to spiit a 20 foot x 50 foot
(1,000 square feet) rectangle from an adjacent 40' x 50' parcel of land owned by Dave Padilla,
670 Dover Street N.E. If approved, this 1,000 square foot area will provide additional rear
yard adjacent to the petitioner's dwelling.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The lot spiit request is atypical, in that it does not create a buildable property. It will need to be
combined with the petitioner's property at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. and would not be
allowed to stand alone. The propecty at 670'Dover Street N.E. (8,600 square feet) currently
does not meet the minimum lot area r�quiremeRt of 9,000 square feet; however, it does meet
the lot area of 7,500 square f�;et #or prc�pe�ti�s pla�ted prior to 1955. The'area of the lot split
does not provide usable area for 670`Qover'Street as it is west of the primary portion of the lot
(see aerial). It will increase the side yard adjacent to the petifiioner's house from 11 feet to 31
feet.
The City should acknowledge the lot area deficiency of 670 Dover Street.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMM(SSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the
City Council with one stipulation:
1. The area split shall be combined for tax purposes with the petitioner's property.
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission, acknowledging the lot area deficiency of 670 Dover Street, voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.
I CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action.
5.01
Project Summary
L.S. #97-01, by Monte Maher
Page 2
Petition For:
Location of
Property:
Legal Description
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
PROJECT DETAILS
A lot split to sp(it 20 feet from an adjacent 40' x 50' parcel.
7965 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Lots 16 - 21, Block W, Riverview Heights, except the east 40
feet of Lots 20 and 21
32,670 square feet; .75 acres
Flat
Trees, sod
R-1, Single Famiiy Dwelling; Riverview Heights, 1922
Connected
RiverView Terrace; Cheryl Street
N/A
None
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this
location.
To be taken
rJ.02
Project Summary
L.S. #97-01, by Monte Maher
Page 3
ADJACENT SITES:
WEST: Zoning: R-1, Singie Family Dwelling Land Use: Residential
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
The petitioner, Monte Maher, requests that a lot split be granted to split a 20 foot x 50
foot (1,000 square feet) rectangle from an adjacent 40' x 50' parcel of land owned by
Dave Padilla, 670 Dover Street N.E. if approved, this 1,000 square foot area will
provide additional rear yard adjacent to the petitione�'s dwelling.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The subject property is located at the intersection of Riverview Terrace and Cheryl
Street. Located on the subject property is a single family dwelling unit. The date of
construction for the original dwelling unit is unknown. In 1963, a 16' x 20' garage/
workshop was constructed. In 1994, the City granted a variance to reduce the rear
yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet, and also granted a special use permit to allow the
construction of an addition in the flood fringe area in order to allow construction of an
addition. In 1995, the petitioner received a building permit to construct a 26' x 50'
addition to the north side of the existing dwelling.
ANALYSIS
The pe#itioner's lot split proposal is atypicaf in that it does not create a buildable lot.
The petitioner proposes to split 20 feet from a 40' x 50' adjacent parcel which is
landlocked between three parcels; 670 Dover, 7965 Riverview Terrace, and 7995
Riverview Terrace. This adjacent piece is currently owned by the owner of 670 Dover
Street to the east. 670 Dover Street does not meet the minimurn lot area (9,000 square
feet) for properties platted after 1955. The current lot area of this property is 8,600
square feet with the combined 60' x 110' parcel and the 40' x 50' parcel in question. If
approved, the lot split would reduce the lot area of 670 Dover Street to 7,600 square
feet. This area meets the minimum lot area required for prope�ties platted prior to 1955,
5.03
Project Summary
L.S. #97-01, by Monte Maher
Page 4
which is 7,500 square feet. The location of the subject parcel, west of the primary
portion of the 670 Dover Street parcel, is such that splitting the 1,000 square feet does
no# adversely impact the usable area of 670 Dover Street. The lot split improves the lot
definition, and increases the side yard of 7965 Riverview Terrace from 11 feet to 31
feet. This 1,000 square foot area, however, should be combined for tax purposes with
the petitioner's existing lot.
The City will need to acknowledge the iot area deficiency of 670 Dover Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to
the City Council with one stipulation:
1. The area split shall be combined for tax purposes with the petitioner's property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission, acknowledging the lot area deficiency of 670 Dover Street,
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City CounciL
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action
5.04
RgSOLUTION NO. - 1997
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, L.S.
#97-01, TO SPLIT 20 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT
670 DOVER STREET N.E. AND ADD IT TO 7965 RIVERVIEW
TERRACE N.E.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a lot split at the ,
1997 meeting, and a stipulation attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, such approval was to split 20 feet from the adjacent
property at 670 Dover Street N.E. and add it to the Maher's
property to make a larger rear �ard, on Lots 16, 1Z, 18, 19,
20, and 21, except that portion of Lots 20 and 21 described as
follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 21, thence
southwesterly on the north line of said Lot 21 a distance of
40 feet; thence southeasterly and parallel with the easterly
line of Lots 20 and 21 to the south line of Lot 20; thence
easteriy on the south line of said Lot 20 a distance of 40
feet to the soubheasterly corner of said Lot 20; thence
northwesterly on the easterly line of said Lots 20 and 21 to
the point of commencement, all in Block W, Riverview Heights,
generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E.
WHEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey from
the owner; and
WHEREAS, such approval uzill split 20 feet from the adjacent
property at 670 Dover Street N.E. and add it to 7965 Riverview
Terrace N.E.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the
petitioner to record this lot split aC Anoka County within six months
of this approval or else such approval shall be null and void.
PASSED AND ADppTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THTS
DAY OF , 1997,
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
5.05
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
Page 2- Resolution No. - 1997
EXHIBIT A
1. The area split shall be combined for tax purposes with the
petitioner's property.
5.06
s
P
_-�'�" '� �
_ \ R,�\ �
�, �
� ` ,
_.�5,�
ZOfllfl9 �19f1�1Of15:
� R 1 -� Farrily tkrls
0 R-2 - Two Family Uryts
� F�3 - Gener-al Miltitiple Units
� R 4 - Nbbile Home Parks
PUD - Plarried Urrt Qe�eloprr�nt
� S1 - Hyde Parlc Neighborhood
0 S2 - F�edeveloprr�ert Distrid
� G1 - �oCal Business
0 Gz - c� e��
� G3 - Gener-al Stx�pin9
— GR1- �al Office
[� IuF1 - L.ight Indstrial
� N42 - h�eavy Irxkstrial
� n� - aca�« i�c� �, i�,a.
� � - r��i�
� P - Public Facilities
O �+T�
f � wc�-rr-oF-vuav
.�a n.�
LS #97-01, 7965 Riverview Terrace�
This request, by Monte Maher,
is to split 20 feet from the
adjacent property at 670 Dover
and add it to the Maher's
property to make the rear yard
larger.
5.07
,i
�
Corrpiled and drawn from aff� b�sed
«, a�� rb. m �d � n� ��
date 127/56 together wilh aN arnendng ordn-
ar�ces adopted and effective as d 2J17J97.
I I The c;ity af Fridey tras talcen every eff«t m pro�1
vide the most up-to-date ir�fom�ation available. I
I I 1t,e data p�e.se�,ted r,ene �s subject to d,ange_
The City of Fri�ey will not be respor�sible for
_ ; �, �a ��t►�S ��.
�_ ---- - —
�'.�
L.S. ��97-01
- -_— Monte Maher
C�RTIrICAT� Or SURVEY
F OI� I<URTH SURV[YlNG, INC.
��U!�=_�%.�-�Lj� 400Z J[fFERSON ST. N.E.
i �+Er+EUr ceirtifr Tiv,T riiis sui�vr:v, ���N� �q RE�,���i COIUM�IA HEIGHfS, Mh1, 55�21
VAS PIiL�AqEO UY MF. OR UNULR MY O1�tCT SUPF V�J{M!�
�s��� 7B8-B768 FAX 1.61]) 788-700:
�NN 711�f I AM A DUIY �ICENSf:U TAfJU SW2V[V JUL-R �
e_LAUS�or�S sr - M r,�su n. bATE � 1 c� I�� � �z3�47
� •o ° 1 RON MONUM[NT �.F-i'
M I NESOTA � I CEI��— 0. �4.> \\� � 30
�-_-- — f--==-�
SCA�E ir� ( EE7
Lats sixteen (!6), seventeen (17), eigl�teen ((8), nuieteen (19), twenty (20), aud twenty-one (21), save and excepting
d�erefrom d�ai portion of lots twe��ty (20), and twenty-one (21), described as follows: Commencing at d�e Northeast (NE
comer of said lot 21, d�ence Soudiwesterly ai U�e Nortl� luie of said lot 2l a distance of Forty (40) feet; d�ence
Southeasterly and parailel with d�e Easterly line of lots 20 ai�d 21 to the Soudi line of lot twenty (20); the�ice Easterly on
t1�e SouUi line of said lot 20 a dis[ance of forty (40) feet to Uie SouU�easterly con�er of said lot twenty (20); thence
Nortl�westerly on die Easterly liue of said lats 20 and 21 to Uie point of conmienceme��t, all in E31ock "W" of River View
Heigfits, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the plat diereof on file and of record in d�a o�ce of d�e Register of
Ue�ds in a�id for said County �nd Statc. �
� � v � r� �-� `v . � c= i � G4 O � P � �,��
�
� --- ---- - ----- -- ---- � - — ---
� i ,—
,
:. �
-- --- ` � I
< _ __ I
\ � `�� C . -- C_� i� � - I---- -- —` �
� \ �O � � -- �-` I I
a � 11 0 )O i � '., ' ,
�9 • co � � I
1 3 �. ..
/ ___�_ 1� 1�,_�. l
� �� � S �Z 3 ��.3. ;� � . o ��' uc:. co� � . .
I \ t'� �I 1� � �4T 2..1
f � T �I1 � I
i � � � p or�• �- , I
�\ — — - � _ — g-�r$ 2 ?,;o' �
�0 � � o g .� �� °� �' "� I �-- '
� 8��� �9c°`� r� �,o ,� �;', � ���-� -i o �
�� N 1 wp-t
_ _ � 8 1 (�. S o.� -, �; �- � o _�,� 3 0 � o
\ ,� B �., �^ —`�' jP� -
� � fP N
�
� � � � \�� — � � � Iz � ---� , =j -
— � \ - 28.-z'=' -- �
(\� -1 l � — � o io {Z
T� 1 G � �
O /� ` � �
a � Y ��� N R � � ��
\ ��� - --- _ ��'
� �Q��� o
� � ��` -, �
� � - ---- ---- - ^
�\ � \ /J 1 L `
\ `�\ I . ' , "
(�
�' ��`-\ \
� — � � ` ) J ' � `
l'Q
s�� �. U t�0 :> C_. t�� ��� L 1 T
C �-��2� �� �-�-
t��- ����_ 1�' Z 1 C� ti, l`_� b�.�8 �
_ , ��" � �- � w-�
�/�<;..1�� -
.,�_. -.�.w�.,,,....,,.;w,,,�,�..,...�.. ,,,,,,....,�..
�
��.
� L���(��
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NLY 16, 1997' PAGE 17
Ms. McPherson stated, in that case, that is within th
requirements. ��
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, � close the public
hearing. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING C�ED AT 9:00 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr_/Saba, to recommend approval
of Special Use Permit, SP #97-05,� Karl Foster, to allow
construction of a second access y structure over 240 square fee*
(23.25 feet x 23.75 feet�, on at part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised�
Auditor's Subdivision No. 23, generally located at 6654 East River
Road N.E., with the follow�a'ng stipulations:
l. The existing and �roposed garages and dwelling shall be
architecturally�ompatible.
2. The accesso _ structures shall not be used for a home
occupatio .
3. The p itioner shall provide a hardsurface driveways to the
prop sed and existing garages by June 31, 1993.
UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOT N CARitIED UNANIMOUSLY.
M's. McPherson stated the City Council will consider this request: .
on July 28.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S.
#97-01, BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER:
To split 20 feet from the adjacent property at 670 Dover
Street N.E. and add it to the Maher's property to make a
larger rear yard, on Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, except
that portion of Lots 20 and 21 described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 21, thence
southwesterly on the north line of said Lot 21 a distance of
40 feet; thence southeasterly and parallel with the easterly
line of Lots 20 and 21 to the south line of Lot 20; thence
easterly on the south line of said Lot 20 a distance of 40
feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 20; thence
northwesterly on the easterly line of said Lots 20 and 21 to
the point of commencement, all in Block W, Riverview Heights,
generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the readinq
of the public hearing notice and to open the.public hearing.
5.09
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PAGE 18
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI,ARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:02 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a lot split between 7965
Riverview Terrace and 670 Dover Street. The petitioner is
requesting a lot split to divide a 40 foot x 50 foot parcel in
half creating two 20 foot x 50 foot parcels. If approved, one
small parcel would be added to the petitioner's property at 7965
Riverview Terrace and would increase the side yard from 11 feet to
31 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's property is located at the
intersection of Cheryl Street and Riverview Terrace. The adjacent
property at 670 Dover Street is located slightly northeast of the
subject property. The property and all the surrounding properties
are zoned R-1, Single Family.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is atypical in that it does not
�reµtP u hiui 1 i�lahl n 1 pt , Thn rn,^�t10I1 thdt lc �"J�'l:^:y CO::S1�p�Ad iOZ'
a split will need to be combined with the property at 7965
Riverview Terrace in order to have a single tax parcel and that it
does not stand alone. The property at 670 Dover, with the
entirely of the 40 foot x 50 foot parcel, does not currently meet
the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement. It totals
8,600 square feet. The Dover Street parcel does meet the minimum
7,500 square foot lot area requirement for lots platted prior to
1955. If approved, the Planning Commission will need to
acknowledge this deficiency in their motion. The lot split does
create a more logical 1ot division between the two parcels and
does not adversely impact the useable area of 670 Dover.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of this reguest.
The motion should acknowledge the lot area deficiency of 670 Dover
Street. Staff recommends the following stipulation:
l. The area split shall be combined for tax purposes with the
petitioner's property.
Ms. Savage asked if there were any calls or comments opposing the
request.
Ms. McPherson stated no that staff did not receive any calls
regarding this request.
Mr. Maher stated the lot is awkward in its positioning_ He has
done an addition of 1300 square feet and the lot split would give
them more room off of the kids back bedroom anci more baekyard.
This lot was originally with the property.
5.10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PAGE 19
Mr. Maher stated the owners of that property want him to buy that
house from them. He would suggest that the City do something with
lots like that. He would have liked to take the property down,
take the whole 40 feet, and combine that with his lot. Then
purchase the lot to the south, which is empty, and combine the
lots. That would make the area a better place. Bigger lots make
for better houses.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the
stipulations.
Mr. Maher stated he had no prok•lem with paying taxes.'
Mr. Kondrick stated he understands that the other half of the
parcel needs to be recorded. How do we make certain that this is
recorded with the County?
Ms. McPherson stated staff would have to verify if it.has its own
property identification P_i1P.�1}Je1'. Sfiaff �piil � a�k that k,ipth FdrC?IS
be comi�ined with the proper adjacent properties so either the
petitioner.and/or the owner make sure that their half is combined
with their proper parcel.
Mr. Hickok stated this is not as much about taxes. The
stipulation pertains to combining the parcels for tax purposes so
that we do not at some time in the future end up with a small
parcel that exists up on its own. By combining, it will be
recognized as one tax parcel not only to the petitioner but also
in the tax records.
Ms. Modig stated the legal description will change so that it has
only one PIN or identification number.
Mr, Hickok stated yes. Staff will also notify the 670 Dover owner
that they will also have to make that change in the records.
Ms. McPherson stated staff provides assistance is doing this. The
Assessing Department helps with the paperwork that must be
prepared for the County property records department.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CP.RRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:13 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problems with the request. He
thought it would benefit both parties.
5.11
PLANNIN6 GOMMISSION MEETING, JULY 16, 1997 PAGE 20
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend
approval of Lot Split, L.S_ #97-01, by Monte and Michelle Maher,
and acknowledging the deficiency in the lot area of 670 Dover
Street, to split 20 feet from the adjacent property at 670 Dover
Street N.E. and add it to the Maher's property to make a larger
rear yard, on Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, except that portion
of Lots 20 and 21 described as follows: Commencing at the
northeast corner of Lot 21, thence southwesterly on the north line
of said Lot 21 a distance of 40 feet; thence southeasterly and
parallel with the easterly line of Lots 20 and 21 to the south
line of Lot 20; thence easterly on the south line of said Lot 20 a
distance of 40 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 20;
thence northwesterly on the easterly line of said Lots 20 and 21
to the point of commencement, all in Block W, Riverview Heights;
generally locat�d at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E., with the
following stipulation:
l. The area split shali be comi�ined for tax purposes with the
petitioner's property, and
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request
on July 28.
Mr. Maher stated he would purchase the property next door if he.
knew he could purchase the empty lot adjacent to that �x-operty.
4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSIQ-N"�MEETING OE'
JUNE 11, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kond�ick, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meetirig of June 11, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,,'CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5_ RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF JUNE 12,�- -
cli
MOTION by Mr. Kondr-�ck, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
minutes of the HAusing & Redevelopment Authority meeting nf
June 12, 1997 �-'� �
UPON A V�CE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION �E.'ARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAI2ED THE
5.12
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ME
City of Fridley
C�J
William W. Burns, City Manager r� iI�
� �
John G. Flora, Public Works Director
July 28, 1997
PW97-195
Improvement of Interstate Highway I-694 Northeast Ramp to Trunk Highway 47
The City of Fridley, in coordination with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT),
has prepared the plans and specifications for the upgrade and ramp widening and signal
revisions for the northeast ramp of I-694 to TH 47 within the City corporate limits. The plans
were approved by the Mn/DOT office.
Resolution No. 41-1997, adopted by the City Council, authorized the advertisement for bids.
Bids were opened on Fxiday, July 18, 1-997, at the Municipal Center. Two bids were received.
The low bidder was Forest Lake Cqnstruetion With a bid of $453,496.01. The agreement will be
updated to reflect this amount when the document is sent back to thei� o#fice for signature.
The State has agreed to pay the construction cost of the project and wants to expedite the
award.. Accordingly, they have submitted Agreement No. 76204 with the City to pay for the
construction of the proposed project. The City will be responsible for administexing the project
and the State will be responsible for inspection and providing funds for payment of the
construction work.
To facilitate the construction of this improvement this construction season, recommend the City
Council adopt the attached resolution autharizing the execution of Mn/DOT Agreement No.
76204 and receive the bids and award the contract with Forest Lake Construction for
$453,496.01 subject to MnDOT approvaL
JGF:cz
Attachment
6.01
BID FOR PROPOSALS
I-694 NE 12AMP TO TH 47 (UN�'vrEi�SITY AVE} SY 0205-71
PROJECT NO. ST. 1997 - 3
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1997, 10:00 A.M.
`PLANHOLDER BID BOND BID COMMENTS ' '
Farest Lake Cont. $453,496.01
14777 Lake Drive
Forest Lake MN 55025-9461
�
Thomas & Sons Construction $457,050.35
13925 Northdale Blvd
Ro ers MN 55374 �
Brom Traffic NO BID
Collins Electric NO BID
Construction Materials NO BID
Minneapolis Builders _ NO BID
Progressive NO BID
Renex NO BID
W. B. Miller NO BID
6701 Norris Lake Rd NW
Elk River Iv1N 55330
6.�2
R}3SOLUTION NO. -1997
RFsSOLUTION APPROVING Mn/DOT AGRESMFsNT NO. 76204 WITH THE
MINN$SOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMPROVING THE I-
694/TH 47 NORTHEAST RAMP
WHEREAS the City of Fridley and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation agree that the northeast ramp of Interstate
Highway 694 to Trunk Highway 47 needs to be improved, and
WHEREAS the City of Fridley has prepared plans for improving this
ramp, and
WHEREAS the City of Fridley has received bids for this �
improvement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley enter into
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 76204 with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to-wit:
To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's
share of the costs of the grading, concrete surfacing, storm
sewer and traffic signal construction and other associated
construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to the
northeast ramp of the Trunk Highway No. 694/Trunk Highwa� No. 4.7
interchange from Engineer Station 2+131.32 to Engineer Station
2+442.30 within the corporate City limits under State Project No.
0205-71 (T.H. 47=156).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to execute such Agreement.
PASSSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE3 CITY OF FRIDLEY
THIS 28H DAY JULY, 1997.
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
6.03
FIl�
CI7
TO:
vCE DEPARTMENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
2IDLEY :
MEMORANDUM :
�
�
RICHARD D. PRIBYi.
' t�[�Y FINf11VCE DIRECTOR
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
WILLIAM A, CHAMPA, CITY CLERK
MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR CLIMB THEATRE COMPANY
DATE: July 24, 1997
Attached is a resolution approving the application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit for CLIMB Theater Company. Gambling will be conducted at Maple
Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 Northeast.
Minnesota State Statutes requires the adoption of a resolution approving this type of
gambling permit.
RDP/me
Attachment
RESOLIITION NO. - lgg�
RESOLIITION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO
CLIMB (CREATIVE LEARNING IN MIND & BODY)
THEATRE COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a co
Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permitf for
CLIMB THEATRE COMPANY; and
WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for Maple Lanes
6310 Highway 65 NE; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fri3ley has not found any reason to restrict
the location for the charitable gambling operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Fridley approves the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
to CLIMB Theatre Company.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF
, 1997.
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMpA - CITY CLERK
%.02 ,
: S E N: S I� T ��^V y� ';'
'That's us -- CLIMB Theatre:
Caring, ihought provoking; educationai,
=`�eol;and fun! These complimentary words are how
kids and educators describe us and our plays ond
drama classes. But, ihese words are more than
; compliments to us, they are contirmations ihot we
are doing and being what we intend.
1Ne are very purposeful in our progromming
� alwoys working with classroom teachers, child
psychologists. school counseiors and parenis and
other experts to assure thot our work is educationa!ly
sound, relevont to current needs, and entertaining.
We work with over 250,000 youngsters
eoCh year - performing our plays over 700 times and
teaching over 2,000 classes. These numbers could
be seen as a testameni to our effectiveness, but we
' see it insiead as an overwhelming responsibiliry. We
have o huge opportunity to impact youngsters cnd
we must not let them or you down.
It is ihis sense of responsibility that also has
us seeking to reach even more children. To ihat end.
we've just opened our first branch office located neor
Atlanta, Georgia. It's operated by Suzan Lund, who.
before moving to Georgia, worked with us in St. Paui
foc four years as an actor, company manoger. and
finally a sales manager. Our Georgia company is
made up of four talented local actors who live in or
near Atlanta. Back at home, we've expanded eur
touring and are working, not only in MN, but olso in
North and South Dakota, lowa, and quite extensively
in Wisconsin. We ev2n hope to tour on eiiher ihe
East or West Coast.
VJe're also delighted ihat several other
iheatres throughout ihe country are considering
producing OUCHf, OWIE! and Expect Respect.
These are all exciting happenings, and
ihey_ceiebrate our 2lstyear ...Yes. CLIMB is now
officiaily an aduli. And, in many ways we are very
adult-like: We're big -- we have 35 full-time actors.
octor-educators and administrators, plus;tinothei
100,or so mostly part-time people who wdrk in our
various charitable gaming sites (the fruits Qf their
labors help keep our program fee3 downj: We've
got a very bright fut�re and we're on our own
(95%a supported by income we generate through
fees, charitable gaming, and other business�, �-
ventures - iike a training program for business�s
focusing on customer service improvement, or a
children's radio show we'd like to launch.)
But, as "fldult" as we may`be - it's ihe
balance between'professional maturity and
chiidhqod playfuiness, sensitiviry ond imaginbtion,
thot allows us to reach your students. So, here's
to adulthood and to childhood and to our promise
to coniinue to bring you ihe best of both.
Best regards,
/,���%i�
Peg Wetli
Executive Director
�'
�.,� � � � � .
VIOLENCE . %'REVEI�BT�C��! Yy�"`'` I�'I ' � � � �,,
� U C f"i � . .. .. . ha I
OWIE!
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND i
ADDICTiON
GROUNDED
UNDER THE IN� LUENCE
iSEXUAL HARASSMiENT -. �
��.n_�__._v...h.......,___.>.., . ._:..._ �
EXPECT RESPECT
EXPECT RESPEGT, TOO
j,
, . . _ .. .. _ . , _ . . .. . . . . . . . -.,:
CONSERVA.TION/RECYGLING .
�a;:.
TOADILLY TURTLE _..,.
7.04
�
�UBSTANCE ABUSE AND AiJ�{CTiON
�aROUNDED
Aimy Fairfax, the new kid in town--is
desperate to make friends, but her
new friends want her to experiment
with cigareftes & alcohoi. Upset and
unable to decide whdt to do, Aimy.
finds a talking statue 'in her attic who
helps her leam about nicotine,
alcohol, marijuana, and inhalants
and the negative consequences of
choosing to use these substances.
Audience: Grades 3 - 5
Maximum Size: � 300
Performance Length: 45 minutes
Performing Area: 30' deep,
Price: $398.00 35' wide, 10' high
CONSERVATION/RECYCLiNG
����C�ADIL.LY �I��TLE
A tan`alizing m;�stery about a orce
�eautiful lake must be soivedi
Tah-dah! Toad�liy Turtle to the rescuel
Simple costumes, take-f�ome pieces
and a coloring page of Toadilly
!U�tle are supplied for each child.
Audience: Grades Kg - 3
Maximum Size: 275
Performance length: 3� minutes
Performing Area: 30' deep, 35'w;de
Price: S418.00 10' hi�h
iF�AS�-I!
A. comic, but s�inky bag of trash
helps James ar;d the audience
;earn about waste reuse, reduction
cnd recycling. A take home proj �c'
and award for it's completion
er�courages the 3 - R's.
Audience: Gr;�de> 3 .5
Maximum Size: 30�i
Performance Lengi�f�: %i5 �ni�,�if�:�,
Perf�rming Area: ?_1" c�,'c:�e:�_,, :'>O"��: �� ;�:
Price: �!i 1 f3 0(�
7.05
l.l�it�ER �HE
����UENCE
Under the Influence reinforces
students' commitment�not to use '.
�, :;
nicotine, alcohol man�uana�or� �
other drugs. A play within=a=play finds
four actors casually. interacting with
the audience and each other to
develop a persuasive case for being
nicotine, alcohol and drug free.
Audience: Grades 6 - 9
Maximum Size: 350 .::�.,:. - :�
Performance Length: 45 minutes '
Performing Area: 22' deep,24' �vide
Price: S448.00
�EXUAL HARASSMENT ' - =
EXPECT RESPECT
A N D
�?:PECT FvESPEC i ,TOO
Humorous ora N�ignant, tnese
chall��ngirg p'ays provide a de�initio^
of harassme^�' a�d sexual harassme�t.
Students_are �mpowered to la�el�and
manaoe nc�rassment by choosing
behaviors ?hc` demonstrate respect
for thems�,v°s and respecT for ot�,,e�s�.-
Audience: �� ;d�s b - 8
ti1aximum Size: 350
Audience: �:�•a;�es 9 - i 2
t�.�aximum Size: 500
Audience: Grcdes 7 - 11
M�ximum Size: 350
P�;rformanc� Length: �1�, �,.� _.� ., �
P�rformance Area: ?;? <i��,e;_�� % ; ::- . .
!';iue: ..
E S I D E�el C i E S
A �� CONSISTS OF
DRAMA CLASSES WHICH UTILIZE
MONOLOGUES, SCENES, ROLE-PLAYS
AND IMPROVISATION TO REINFORCE
TEACHERS� CLASSROOM
OBJECTIVES.
THESE UNIQUELY ENGAGING
C�ASSES vIVE STUDEfVTS OF ALL
AGES AND ABILITIES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE
IMPORTANT LIFE ISSUES IN AN
lNTERACTlV�, NON T!-IREATENING
ATMOSPHERE.
VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Non-violent conflict resoluTion,
positive assertive responses to seicual
harassment and how to create a
respectful community are some of
the skilis leamed in CLIMB's violence
prevention and sexual harassment
residencies.
Depending upon individual agency
interest, focus can be given to such
areas as:
- Alternatives to Violence
- Acceptance of Differe�ce Di rsity
- Sexual HarassmPnt
- Conflict Resolu
- Respect
7.�6
- 4- 6 CLASSES A DAY
- 35-50 MINUTES PER CLASS
- RESIDENCIES RANGE FROM
1- 20 DAYS IN LENGTH
- A RESIDENCY OF 5 DAYS
OR MORE ALSO INCLUDES
AN INTRODUCTORY
MEETING FOR TEACHERS,
A COMMUNITY EVENT AND
A TEACHER INSERVICE
PROGRAM.
- PR�CE: 5 DAY 51650.00
1 DAY 5365.00
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND
ADDICTION
CLIMB continues where DARE leaves
off! CLIMB's Residencies build on
students' refusal skili levels and �
provide opporfunities to role-play
resisting peer pressure, while letting
students experience how making
good choices and healthy decisions
builds a sense of self-respect and
personal power.
Previous areas of focus have been:
- Peer Pressure
- Healthy Choices
- Stranger Safety
- Personal Body Safety
- Alcohol and Drug Refusal Skills
�
' CONSERVATION/RECYCLING
?:�eserving and protecting our
�,cnet is a task CIIMB entrusts to
� u i ure generations through
r�sidencies that raise the awareness
of environmental issues.
D�pending on individuai agency
;nput, focus can be given in areas
such as
- Reducing, Reusing & Recycling
- Energy & Water Conservation
- Endangered Species
- interdependence of
Humankind and Nature
SPECIAL RESlDENCfES
Whiie C� IiVi� nas an exis�ing reper�oire
of Residencies on frequently
requested topics, CLIMB also creates
new Residencies in response to
unique schooi requests. Specially
designed residencies have inciuded:
- Humor without Humiliation
A Creative writing residency for
3rd - 8th graders on hpw to write
funny material without using
put-downs.
- Non-Traditional Families
A residency to help Kindergarten
through 6th graders adjust within
blended or stepfamilies.
- Inclusion - Designed to help high
school students without disabilities
include students with severe
mental disabilities into their
regular education classes.
- Personal Body Safety
Teaching second graders how to
keep themselves safe regarding
unwanted or uncomfortable cand
inappropriate touch
%�.�%
� P� S E R�J i C E�
CLIMB�S "TEACHER-FRIENDLY��
INSERVICES PROVIDE ON-THE-SPOT
ENTERTAINMENT AND LASTING
INSPIRATION AS TEACHERS GAIN
PRACTICAL ACCESS TO CREATIVE
DRAMA AND THEATRE ARTS AND
LEARN SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES TO
REINFORCE VIOLENCE PREVENTION,
NON-VIOLENT CONFUCT RESOLU-
TION, ASSERTIVE AND APPROPRIATE
RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASS-
MENT, RESPECT AND ACCEPTANCE
OF DIFFERENCES IN THEIR CLASS-
ROOM AND THROUGHOUT THE
SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
PR!CE: ONE-HOUR �385.00
TWO-HOUR $645.00
s:`�ts
4TEACHER INSERVICES
CLIMB's highiy effective inserv;ces
give teachers practical activities,
methods and techniques that
stimulate imagination and
encourage student participation
while reinforcing classroom
objectives such as:
- Violence prevention
- Sexual harassment
- Conflict resolution
- Respect for self and others
- Environmental responsibility
- Positive behavior management
Inservices are created to meet the
needs and interest of individual
schools and districts. They can
vary in length from one to eight
hours, and can be for groups of
5 to 50 teachers.
7.0�
CLASSES FOR PERSONS
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
CLINB ^�as 21 years' experience
v��ork:ny in self-contained and
regu�c- �ducation settings with
persc�s who have moderaie to
severe mental disabilities, modera�2
to severe emotional and behavioral
disorc�rs, visual and/or hearing
impc�r�2nts, communication
disorC�rs and learning disabilities.
CLIMB �vorks with each individua�
agen;��; �o design programs that
^�P�- -�c cJ2CIGl nPA�� n� ��P;,
DQftICi�C7f1tS.
CONFERENCE WORKS.HOPS
CLIMB pr;;vides interaciive and
inforrriptive presentations that
demonsrra�e innoVative drama
programming for "at-risk" students,
students ���ith disabilities, or regular
education students.. These presenfia-
tions can be 1 to 2 hours in length.
Sample workshops have included:
- Abuse orevention for elementary
studen`s with disabilities,(a worksnop
on CLI'��B's drama classes on
assertiveness and reporting for
student; with emotional and
behavioral disorders.)
- Violenc� prevention through drama
for stucents K - 12.
- How tc �each improvisation to high
school ;rudents.
- Drama activities to b�iild a peac���;;
classroom.
�
�
� oF
FRIDLEY
GAS SERVICES
Countryside Heating & Cooling
651 1 Hwy 12
Maple Plain MN 55359
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL
All State Construction Service Inc
2610 1 Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55408
Suilding & Property Services Ca
7528 Arthur St NE
Fridley MN 55432
Wellington Window & Door
3938 Meadowbrook Rd
St Louis Park MN 55426
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL
Exterior Design Service (3237)
6391 Monroe St NE
Fridley MN
Maverick Construction (5572)
1 1227 River Rd NE
Hanover MN 55341
Moes Construction (8969)
5215 53 Ave N
Crystal MN 55429
Peak Roofiing (20045301)
1 1506 S Oakvale
Minnetonka MN 55305
LICENSES
Dawn Neuman
Wayne Payne
Cheryl Schatz
Greg Scheff
Paul Kilgore
Andy Sarbel
William Moe
Dave Lybeck
9.02
RONJULKOWSKI
Building Official
RON JULKOWSKI
Building Official
Same
Same
STATE OF MINN
Same
Same
Same
Seal Guard Systems Inc
11464 Robinson Dr
Minneapolis MN 55433
HEATING
Countryside Heating & Cooling
651 1 Hwy 12
Maple Plain MN 55359
PLUMBING
A-Aarons Plumbing
PO Box 712
Chanhassen MN 55317
Gruenberg, Steven Plumbing
3845 Bryant Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55409
Larson Plumbing Inc
3095 162 Ln NW
Andover MN 55304
Tschida Bros Plumbing
1036 Front Ave
St Paul MN 55103-1224
ROOFING
Dalbec Roofing Inc
548 Willow Drive
Long Lake MN 55356
Thurnco Inc
4708 W 29 St
St Louis Park MN 55416
Debra Karpe
Dawn Neuman
Dave Hughes
Steven Gruenberg
James Larson
LeRoy Tschida
Kevin Krolczyk
Don Thurnblom
9.03
Same
RON JULKOWSKI
Building Official
STATE OF MINN
Same
Same
Same
RON JULKOWSKI
Building Official
Same
CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioners, John and Joette Zembal, request that a variance be granted to reduce the side yard
setback of an attached garage from 4 feet to 3 feet. If the variance is granted, the petitioners propose
to construct a 7 foot by 38 foot addition to their existing single car garage.
STATED HARDSHIP:
See statement dated June 12, 1997.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Section 205.05.B.(2).(b�.1) of the Fridley Zoning Code states that the side yard setback for an addition
to an attached single car garage may be reduced to four (4) feet if the nearest structure on the .
adjacent lot is a single car garage which is at least four (4) feet from the common lot line.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide space between individuaJ structures to reduce
the possibility of �re, to provide access to the rear yard for emerg�encies, and to limit the condition of
crowding in the residential neighborhood.
The condition on the petitioners' property would allow expansion of the garage to 4 feet from the
property line without a variance since the adjacent dwelling's single car attached garage is more than 4
feet from the common lot line. The Building and Fi�e Codes require one hour fire protection for that
portion of the structure iocated less than 5 feet from the property line. No openings may be in the wall
of the garage.
This request is similar to a previously granted request at 6570 - 2nd Street in 1994. Two neighbors
objected to the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION:
Staff has no recommendation for the Appeals Commission as the request is within previously granted
requests. If the Commission chooses to approve the request, staff recommends one stipulation:
1. The addition shall comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes �
for fire protection requirements.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City
Council. The Commission added a second stipulation:
2. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling.
Two neighbors spoke in support of the request at the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission action.
� �.0�
Project Summary
VAR #97-11, 6821 - 7`h Street
Page 2
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For: A variance to reduce the setback of an attached garage from 4 feet
to 3 feet.
Location of
Property: 6821 - 7t'' Street
Legal Description
of Property: Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 4
Size: 75 feet by 135 feet; 10,125 square feet
Topography: Sloping up from the street to the dwelling; flat rear yard
Existing
Vegetation: Typica{ suburban; sod, shrubs, flowers
Existing
Zoning/Platting: R-1, Single Family; Rice Creek Terrace Plat 4
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities: Connected -
Vehicular
Access: 7"' Street
Pedestrian
Access: None
Engineering
Issues: None
Comprehensive The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this -
Planning Issues: location.
Public Hearing
Comments: To be taken
� �.�2
Project Summary
VAR #97-11, 6821 - 7'h Street
Page 3
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
ADJACENT SITES:
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST:
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
The petitioners, John and Joette Zembal, request that a variance be granted to reduce
the side yard setback of an attached garage from 4 feet to 3 feet. If the variance is
granted, the petitioners propose to construct a 7 foot by 38 foot addition to their existing
single car garage.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY:
The subject property is located on 7�' Street north of Mississippi Street. Located on the
property is a 24 foot by 44 foot dwelling constru�ted in 1957. Also constructed in 1957
was a 12 foot by 20 foot attached garage. In 1984, the petitioners constructed a 12 foot
by 16 foot addition to the rear of the garage, as well as a 20 foot by 22 foot living area
to the rear of the dwelling. The existing garage now measures 12 feet by 38 feet. The
property's rear yard is enclosed by a privacy fence and evergreen trees along the south
property line.
Located to the north is a single family dwelling with an attached single car garage which
is approximately 5 feet from the lot line. The code section below would allow both
garages to be expanded to within 4 feet of the lot line without variances (total
separation distance 8 feet). If variances to both properties were granted, the separation
could be reduced to 6 feet (3 foot setbacks) creating a"tunnel" between structures.
ANALYSIS:
Section 205.05.B.(2).(b).(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code states that the side yard
setback for an addition to an attached single car garage may be reduced to four (4) feet
if the nearest structure on the adjacent lot is a single car garage which is at least four
(4) feet from the common lot line.
11.03
Pro�ect Summary
VAR #97-11, 6821 - 7'h Street
Page 4
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide space between individual
structures #o reduce the possibility of fire, to provide access to the rear yard for
emergencies, and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood.
Based on the location of what exists on the adjacent property, the code allows
expansions to existing attached single car garages to within 3 or 4 feet of the property
line without a variance. In the petitioners' case, the existing garage could be expanded
to within 4 feet of the property line without a variance. The adjacent garage is
approximately 5 feet from the lot line. If approved, this request would require the
adjacent property owner, either current or future, to apply for a variance to expand the
garage. If the setback is maintained at 4 feet, no variance would be necessary for the
adjacent property. The request does not adversely impact the lot coverage. In 1994,
the City granted a similar variance to 3 feet at 6570 - 2"d Street.
If the addition is constructed within 5 feet of the lot line, the Building Code requires no
openings in the wall of the garage and one-hour fire rating along the exterior wall and
into the roof structure.
The request is within previousiy granted requests. Two neighbors have objected to the
request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION:
Staff has no recommendation for the Appeals Commission as the request is within
previously granted requests. If the Commission chooses to approve the request, staff
recommends one stipulation:
The addition shall comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes
for fire protection requirements
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to
the City Council. The Commission added a second stipulation:
2. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling.
Two neighbors spoke in support of the �equest at the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission action.
11.04
�,�� ���:
� R 1 - One Farrily lkris
0 R-2 - Two Farrily Urrts
� R 3- General AAltiple lkits
0 R11 - Nbbile I-brne Parks
PUD - Rarcied Unit Deucloprr�rt
0 S1 - F�yd� Par1c Neighborhood
� sz - �o�,c a��a
� G1 - Local Business
[� G2 - General &siness
� G3 - Gener-al Shopping
- GR1- C'�neral Office
o �, - �� ����
0 n�z - �y i�c�ai
� nM3 -�door �ntensive Heavy �nd.
� RR - Railroeds
,' � P - Pt�blic Fadlities
Q WATER
i � wcwr�-wr>Y
VAR #97-11, 6821 7th Street
This request, by John Zembai,
is to reduce the side yard setback
of an attached garage from 5' to 3'.
A T x 38' addition to the existing
garage is proposed.
'- —
�� �
���'
I �
i
�
�
�
� � � PMiIC
I �
I
i
I
1
i i o�ro
FI �
�
� � � �sre
.�
�w
v�
� ■■
■�
/ _ �,�
(
I
� compi�ed and drauN, frorr, o�aal reoords based
O(1 Ql'�f12f1C2 NO. 7� 8fld Z1X11(Kj � E��V@
date 12!/56 together with all arr�nd'ing ordn-
anoes 2dopted and effective as of 2/17/97.
The City of Fridey has ralcen every eff«t ro pr+�
vide the most up-to-date information available.
The data presented here is subject to drange-
The City of Fridley will not be responsible for
unforeseen erras or usage of this docur�ent.
VAR ��97-11
John Zembal
��.� rz,1q47
c�., °� �,��-�- -
� : a.�-�- � �- . �- -f� � �.h.. u �e... �-G-
. `�
� 8 a 1 `7� S-�. .Jlr�� �,u�
�-�e h.e �..a.o-� .�-�, � ' ' :
_ �
" �c�k� c�-cC��.�i.o�c��-o-a-m �a-z a� 3��(�1�t.e�.�
��¢� �
� .
_ 1�o--�.�._Q c2 ._Q_.�..J�._� �o-�, ' '
'Qi° a..�- -�-h �2�.e�, a�.� -c�» �-avt a �Q :
°�� . 9 � �a-.-,o -� c���
�G�-e1 �.2 �2e a_a.l- �aL,
.
a�7��ha-��e.. �c,r, a�p.t�a.� an-t.c� J � ` ,
�` �.� `-�-�-�-- _�� �, � 1 �, �
.��-e- � .� ' � � �
,
� / �
�.�o c�.g .-�
���� 1 �•-�.�
11.06
.1ii�I—l�,�g� �"dE�� 11 �':� :��.lvi .ii:.�:t'�. Fc�C�D_� :i:�;: i�IC�. 61�'9'%'8i"1`j �'. ?
VAR �197— l 1 �—
08/10/97 07:45 FAd 612 340 8622 L BROTAF.RAOOD John Zembal
. . . .... . . . . . . . - ; , . . . .. . _ . i � .. . . . . . f� 003/OOJ
:::...:';.;�.:::�: - ��::.� ��:;_�::::..:.:��:::� ,:.�::.°:_a_��_.:_::::�.r:.�:..;..t�t_i
. �; , ...�... . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . , ....__ : ;..._ _.._.... _.... ... . .. _ _ .;...,. _ .?_. ...,.
., f�� t!�' ..1: ", ;.....:._....�T . :... : ..:..... .-}-�•_-,• ... . . :......: : : : . �---...� + ..- .. +.. . -�_ , - - � . ....-' � . ... � . .... .
..'� �,:.. � ',�'`, . .. ..._... . , . .;. �� 1�..,�� -— �'i ��'�........i.._.
_..�.T���i'.....,. ......y. � . ... ° �_,i .._ :...1..�.......*_ .- f.
_.._�..�_,.., ►. . �. . . -- }. : .. . •-- . - .. , • � •' • .�. .- _.. .. i . . . _ � - - --.• • - - _— • j+ . +-r....�..�.
..i...-... . , .....i.-..�..�.•_ _ "�":- . '� '�.� ' _ s . � t_i..�........- .�- t .j � �•�
.�..T.�.�_ i..}......._ ...... � .•�• - ' _ . .. . . _ . . - . : - � • - . � . i . . T , . .
.. _ _. . �-' . T. i « T.. Y . e . r . . . . � .. . . ' . ..� . ... r.r. a . � - _ � ' ,..l. . .� •{ .� - � �• •
� � � � ' � • � • �' ^ 1 . . .
:�.:. . :, - j t . 1 . i . . . ; ; :. �"� :' - - ' ' . . T . . . . . . . � - ! • . _ . . � � •" ' _- . � � ... . ' . -. '
t' .�.�..• � ' r'!..�.._..`..:-• � r i•_ - _ . ; . 1.a�7' ,'�-"}-.�.....r, . . . . . . . . . �r - - . . i :-,..' • � r
a... _ d. � i �a �• •a•- '+ 'i:� ? � ...r.L.:�.�� '�--L.�-...�-.... �--f'�� �'--i.y�-�.-. •'-L�.�-�--�{�--�---;—T�a-
,�,.f...��..- �..�,.�..-?..Z_i.. +.'. ` ...y- .. .- i �•.i .....T. . -. ', �•.�^! • --•� i - . 1 . �. : : -���4-•-•-r •� . °1 � . i -. . : -� - ! �� - } . ' - • T � � '
. i F � .�-.�••. •1 l '� ' � � �' . . i •r�1-�.•7�7 �.� .. . i-• � i-- '.> ',' -� . r ; � � Y , . � + � •;•
{ ' . . • '1 ( i ' -.�•�-r• _ • + ' �'" .
... �• •i• ir3 .�. +. - . . i 7..;.•��. _.�_. _ .�.y.4 , `E-.; s . . � ... —i• _ •�� __• ..�..� - .r.. ..�... r
.{.}�.��..�..� ♦ . � ..l�r.�.. � .t` � � .. v �... � f . . i • �
rti � 4.�� $vM1 �-i-1...HT-r...r .1 ..�.. C �..1 � � , _....1. ,�..._ : _ . : �'� • � r ..a- .; � � - *.. .� .t y � � • i !• � • 1 .
` ,{, , ..}..�. � . ' . •..-�"i ..1 ' � �5..:..�. r . .�. .T. : ,.. - _ � . . �. . t i . . i . .l..i y 1
^T}'�i t.j.. � .: 1 •.'t-•.•T' - • r i . �Id�-�.t j } � . . � � f i..,.l... . .�.J ... � .,.y . ..T r 4-•'T-
i Z 1 � •�•• � ........ _.i --i-. - t ( •! "'• • •� -!• . . 'i'"T � ... .1.- � � t . .� -�
..:.. j.�w�-.�.rf .. . �.a..}. .: _ . � j . r ` . • : ......� • -�_a..:.t.�..{..a �.- �.•�• � s .� • • j .
,�. i. .�,«. � �1 , i . � .�... d - � .. . . r � •� �' • }... �-i.-�. • }" _..�....1.�."...�...-. .��..1--f""jj�� �, ,. . �'f'q'�'„��"�'�
_ _.f..: ���,�,� y.r.a-•i-•�- r•'!'-•-�-•r T~� � . .i. . � . . r �- • .•�t"r' " •" � . �.�_�..�-'
.r.T'_'_ r.
i�� , :.. ' � : . , = . : . .T . : ; � r � - �" .i..: .... .. . ;..,-.=.... ; - :.. .... ..�..
,,.: .,..... _.,.. . . . .,-�, • - . - : , .L �; :;....! .�.,..r
.Y,. •� y � ,� + ..t..i-�.. ,� -f%...._' 7'�" � � � •j _ •►•• _ �� . . . I..r r .... . �..�.... a � _ ' ......
�.�.:I:"; � --��- .. �{.. .:.; 1, ��'� .��. t- .i. ..--"'- ' T''� � �... .. � .... _ .• .«a.� .a«!-•... �..• .••.
..�..( T--�--�' . >x �;.•.i:;. � . _ � ..�.. . .. _ ~ ` ` • ---...�.•..}.�T..� �T. ' T T���y�}}}_ •!,•-- ��"-T'"• :
�i.�. 1. ,. } ,•• I '���%'..>,.. .. ..�.s...� �"t•�.?�: .�. =-v�..r: i-� ' ! �� "• �.i.' . � ., _ . . �.� ..Z- � . � ..�' �.
.� _..? .}..h..� .}.+' � ��. " { ° . � f j t b� "',�' •.,� . � . � . � t '. . ��1 t. � . � � • I -1. • .� f • ♦ �"�
•�� � � f {' '* "s tt..yr. . 1 ' ' ,.� ` � �� , 7.. ... � �-- � .(" � ' ' • . , : - -' • -1.. . .. . �-r 1.1 .. . . 1•T -r �.
r.�.,�.#.��* . .c • i _ ± -e . S ' �. . . f..#._:.�.. .. « ; • •{••; • '� � . '-'i • e • . .. i» - , •.- , .i • '�-�-+ -.' -
� .. , , : .. • • ' • ; , � - :• ' . : ..�..i.....�..�.. �
".�.S-Lri � • .• •..�. �.«.T..� -t.�...�T...t�..•—..F.�.-:...�..T....1�-- i T'.�'�?T--.;• . . 3. ..:•-.�'. ' - + ...:.�..
7 � ��h 'r`'., �," ? } . t 3 •-T • J�.t... ..�-..�:'• -'-i'-t•a.. .T.� .. . _.��......t. .•i
-F--r...� ::'.`��x'�',$�ti � .� - • :� - -•� i- 1 '. ' • : t' �� , �.� :.. � . . ' �' . . . .
'Ij .i.. �. .;fvx � {.� ..� . • i . . ` • i � i t ' ; c't- i . � �•/ J.. .i...�,T.. . . ... . i = j._.. .. � i
• ,i 1 �. �' � _ ..�.� r � . . � . . [ • . � . . . .; ._..� L.... ��'�+J�._ . . .. 1 L t.. 7 •
! � •-} ` ..�. � f � • ��� � I ��.FSiSi 'r......� .:a-rt-��..�..L..-�r +- _ •-r+•-{ �'�-i
3 '�' ? - ' " _j..�...�. . � a _ ?-....T....�..r' � i t� � �.l..t..L.1
���, .� . .�rt._ �� .
.�.t�.q..� ....�. --t' • - • . .a, ' ..L._. a..l... .} ���yy� . . h- -'- T : � � j. ,�}. . .i.
S � 1 � ' _ F � � � • ; � . .. • r � " :"; "i !-,• ! • . p • i�t"y,�l.-"'s «'�"•'_' ' : : • ! ' . " � �
_�.. �.'f �y}f� -i e . ! ' 1 � s ;-
• T 1 1 . � • � F.!l� ��� ' ' • i . � i . :. � � � .. 1 ».y' � i • : . r } ...." �^ e . .+-r.. . �.� ... .. ..�.�•�w• �-:•'.
. ..�. '� i . ' : { �. �..� i : � :� f ' f '7' '� " � • 1 ' t : 1 } • .. i ....- l.. � ' . � . -.... .�-.-- ��• !
��'r � � T' u t..�•.��-..a.y- '.._i--"T'�"r.l..}_..�_...}...�..:..T�[_-�.;......r�.-�-- : i��— � ' �,��.Li
...�• . ' ... ' . t� , } . .. : ti• _ �-_ . : �..� � ��- r--: -�� � : . � , i
't �..i .a. •.r-^• • . �, t.. ^ s -.� , . � } . - i . �, � � I � . i .
.«�.l��.t � ' � ' . _ � . . � . I _3 . . _.. ! . s.�.. � � _ r �• f . : i �.� . i ��-! � :-='- i i � 1
,.1 1� l c :. t �. ; '�..a }... . i - . ...1 -.; , . ; : . . ._ • a . ��...� � � i . � "i � .r..i. . �.. . • � ...a._.�. •
. t '�"': 3,-�j'r• .ifi '-t - '-' �.._......•�.. ...s.:�._.° ' • a-. •.i••-'.. �..i 1 -�..r•.• t-.T..L.-�..�..1..:.- _.� . :-�' . . .,..�• v-_ j ' . "~
`: � . t.....�.-. � � p
r' I 7 i •- - . . .v.._ _ a.._ . _ _ ..i _ • ; - -- � : 7 � �° . L.s s ?• •'
�. � ..� � , i .... . � :.. . i i . . i ....r_ '�'�-':-'i ' ' � � . .
. 1 j...ly�� !., �.�.. _f ..,� t. .1 t'' I � • � • ~ �...•. . .
� , . : . . � . . . : � � ' , : , : • . - � • _ _ .� ._ . . F • j . •t-r
._.�.�• , � , , � ..Z t . .. .... .. ....•i--- ��...., - � -.••�._i.. + � � i i =. •[
. i } •� � �_�• ' ��' ._ ' ; + � .i.-;_ ...�..�-f-.{..i-i�-!l�..�--r•�-r. ..�.- ��T.._... - • , ?' e �- - �.
, 1� + a ' t � r : ..� . . ({-' �... .�..�. � � • � � �.. �
`..L��. .T� ....� .I�- -1- • i•. . 1 ��L� � � • � ,� � - 1 , . � � � ' • • y ' " � y� �•• F .• 1 f f . � t..�..��.'' �•T •� •I. f.. 1 . .. �..�
1 ; ]]�� .\ ! �.� .:. .�.. _�..�...I.e-T-•f.•!i..�. 1 . � r • .•..}.r�.
i'� • �.. i+.� t.- �..�. -..l ' - w« � T.�. •��f.J.. ' t �� 1 f��.
.••. i ti�i � � . ° .i -:.. ..� : _ «.� •a ! � '+- : . °. 1 . .�•i.►_••:-�°�. -'p- . ... • .�� ��-� ° ! • rt-
J .•�r. 1 . �� . � . ' . �.y .�-Y 1-.� .- t . . . �? •��. � A"� �
-� '#'-� a M �' � ..• { -� •� • . -i..�'r ... ..a .. -} ' i"T.�.�. 1 ` �..i..f. �.�-i-L. 1
• i -L ' ��..: ��.��� • . - �. • •� • •��' f..R"_�'�'i.T-T-r-�>a Y�•�'Y 1 + ( •t. ..�. � -L � ( � [
.y.j..r ..i- , •t.�..p....J .� q._ ..]�"..�..{.�.1.� . l : S ' ' . . ..• �-� •f•' �
'�"t' 7 .L.ilr ' 4 q'" • = Z•. . . � . � f.. � .. y' ..� �- . •1•'t � . . •� + �.• = Y .}.s � .'"�'T.. . '- �..i.. . � _ 1..:.� . . -
S � +..", .r. T. . . .� • ° .,.•�j� : i # •t
. �._ �.-••- _
r�j..�.� r.. : �. ...��- � a.-j-...� -#... g _.: .{ . . i i. '�...�-►. �. . 1_ � ' . y • .i_.�_�.,.1 �.....�_a•....q.-.�..: _.;....� �_ �i a. .* ..i.�..;.�.r jr.
•..f..p-;-���.�.... •• • :.; ' • �. E.. . 't. �.. .- .. �t . � ...�.1.• • � . i � i i• { 9 � • i • •. .... : . .`I� . � l � a_r.4.�
i •t '�' �� ..i. .}�f^{ � � '�� .. 1 �.•is� � ",�'-�"�'..��..-....}...--�'^...�j �+.. �'T i�"i°• �. �:.. �.. ..j..� T •r' . 1.. i•.� f- � � .
��f...;�. *. a.: .�: - ' " ' . . . _ • ... "�' ..i �... . , — _ � _;
..�.. �. � i k;x �i': r r• • f... � �.. E .�...:-..-.�..-.i_.'-�.-i.-�. � t_.M.i ••T�1r -:. ��..�1-' j-�L..� h..r - �..r. � t" i;'
..y . f . . .r -e �.o.. f . � s o.... Z . - : . 1 -� `-•• � ...: �h�.. j, i"�' �.' r . � � r-� • •}-s. ��. -�^-i-!-' 1"T
�i ,�, ��._ + _! .S. - . � ..� .. . p. i s i . . .• ` • �. r � � _ �' . .y. a . ' � �. � � �." ' ` .. ..T.�.. �{ V
� � • � ; • � �. ..r-�..:. l.-.
�. 1. # 5-.• +. .-.� r-� y .. . � . - 1• � _ .. s � . � .#... ..�.....'. ,. ,..7...•�.�. •+. � t• t i-e-.... i..�{.r- �-'�-�'1•1..
•' �_ ,� . ; • � : -.�. ..�..�-w..� � r• a ' - �.-i.. .:..e..... ..� . .
i 1' � � � : �.� � . -.._. -{ -t-�i'•} i'� i-
•i '•h• -i-..'..;. Y . _ ..._ ..l.._.•�..-• i": ,; -- _.r i . .: i � : .*: ;. i - �!. ±..�..�-.i s '•T : �- 'r :3.► .i.-:- 3 - 1"i �" ?.::'., i_ :'�.... �; . -, .�..L..
..5.,♦ --� • � . �'T•� � • « . t . : i / ! .-'• _ !.. r'- ' ••� � t.• � •I• � ! Y��, �_ , � F. ..�-a �..� .'- ..;.;.s.. .r... ..�.�5�
„_� . . ' .1-.;-• . .. --.•i.�..�..a ! M r T T . .i .�.i. f..a . •s l. -.r t .� •�• �` � J..t.. .*'
..�.�..p.�. ..�.:-- ' *"�'� .a.�... �.t..... �..i �'L .q i. .�..3 }.� 'i �'*' 'f'l -%.T.. •i- �'7' "'}'- •` ••�
.`-._•"- � � • � -� f �{
�p„i�y,.' •�.�. ..�-.�J.... f��......}'-....�. �..�..���_..�.y.,:�_.�..�-r•-�--a-:-•��...:«- i 1� , �-.... ..�-.{-.i.. . ] s i_��...L a. a J :.. i.. .�.....�..�.
�. � . . . _ i . - •+ • ( "� � �� ' . . j .. �.a_r S �-..-i��. r r•1..
.�-1 .{ : i ' f � ; ' � � I . : . � . - . . . . � � i- �,-i.i ! . ; � ..d.? t• 'i—• •' ' "• ' - �«.: ►.. .�.:.�� fi....�t
..i �•.` � i -- ! f e t � ♦ - _t e .. _ .. r - c r. . « ' . . a .. -: � . i . ,... t -'-{.......i._�_.a i. • ..r.. � ; � : �
' 1 � .a. - • y•�;
� 't'
t..i•`.y_�_.r i.�...; : �.:....:. :..;.:.. I i T r-. - ... i . f•�!-� � i • - : i r�-"�'�' •.-�-.�*.�.. ....� ... ..T..�..j.. -7.�:�^T: -•..��`�. .
.. .. :.
1 1 • i : i .- .. L : . . �..; � .., � � . ... . --i.....�.. .i...�.1..:.T � • - __ +-�•� -
. �.....1..�_j-�...-•._�_....� r'' . . . .. . . . . . ._ .. - . ; . . � - • . i.. � �. -�'. ' �t „�..�
.. .� � � � ••• •T•
_ :. ,
- . _ . !
. . . � � •i i 1
. t..., :-a .� � e . . . e t i 1 . , � i . t r ` i. ~..i•-�'°�• � _+.� .. i 1�� '. y.
� _ _ � : ._;.. ♦ , .. .1
T'• ! ,. _ ..
-r ! . ' "' . + � e._..i _c.-•f•.-` r T 'r i _ � . ... 7... .• � . . � ...:� ~ �T' I;'�'�rt �� �� j !
: � ' g i i � i : - . ' . �..�-... .L � } � r •.. .. ..i...�.- -}' ;'" �.t- ♦-•F t �' 1"}•'f
•.• , �•i .-- f•�"-' ,. i - � � f j i•• ? � ' • 1 � i .: 2 ,_�.:,...#.� . �.1.. �-�--f•�•j°
_��. 1 t.�.... i• , , . .
: t,, �.. . ' ,l.� . .. . j. ; r- :. . � . r•
�;F.'..__i..:..�! -�.+_:-"' , _ �i._ ."'.' .':'--... -.. , _.F.3,__ ._�.1�.T..J '7 �'�'_�--� 4 : 1 r . j 3 �. �.��j ..'.
� . r • � . - l. . � r ! � i i� � � "t ' . �..�..�... t '
. _
�, ' • . '
� . a � °i i . r,. .-�. _ .. . . . �. . , i • • � ' . � ' � , ' � . . . . ._... -�..{• �•w�7-_ '�__'�. - !'t. . � . -. �
_I . ... r f �. •. .
; 1 •, 2:., •: •: � �i, ` : : ; . : , j ,. , : Y , . .. � j••_ ,. . .•w.. �.._. _ i.. . t �, � �. ..�.:..� .s..�..�..r. . f , _:. �°.}-� �-* _ i'! . r L•'
• 7 i , 3� '-i' � "f-', t" . . . ' ' - • -� • � . .. �.y_ � -i_t.l .-i-.�.. ..T..�.._ �. -p • ` � � �i
.
. .
�. - • «
. .
. .
•.S'__ j • , , ._. .....l...t.. ...� . -' . � " ..�'j " "_ •_ .._ w.._ • .•1 ���..'r�«....--..�-i..T...- T�i �.1•� . , 11 LL -
. ..�..a. � , � - • _ S . . ' ._ � '_T.._. �.. i' �. .a. 1 . � .:. � �"" �" ' • : „�. �.. .. 1.. T 'j'
. . . / _ .. � . .. . ""1 ' " • + . : . . � . • . � ' . . .1. . .�. . .i.�" � . . J. • } � • t..: � ♦ •�•• �� 1_� .�� : ♦'f"� • .�_.�1. i.{. � `.� T-
.� . . . . . • _ . . . ' .. .. , ... � ♦ 1' ' • � a � 1 -� _•� '*
. '' , � .a a �..� � t �.. • ♦..�.,•i�-•„_�"t"�' '.. .�..�.+.� �� . �.' a.
. ..... ..... . . . . • �
. . . t . - .
j � g- - - �r- --t
, : j.. . . ..f... ., . . . -. . . . � .. . ..; :' ' ' '" ; ' _ ., _ �� . _ �: �; . � :... .: . _ _._..._.. .�.*.}_• _� i..fi.
. . .
: � .i - t �. i - . � - : . . 1 . . . � . . . . . i . • i � ....-.�. •""' ' � �' ±'L � ' � 1'i"1. i� y f
. ,
-_'-�'j.'_^••--_...}�.-.......'t'- "_"' ........... . a """S" . .. � .. r - - 1 • • • r °- '�•l '�•f i �
�. .� ! V
y • ^-r• i ♦ + 1 .
.. , t .� . � . i • - ' . . . . . . _ . • . . ' . . • . ' , . • T ' . ` : . : • r - . / - � r•..' ..�. .:'J�' .. _"{_ '; = �..1. ,.1, f..� �f.i......
. . � :'.� ' • ' - - . - �. _ . , . . .. . . . �- � • - ; • • i .�, i.. . . : � �•r�i - � .. _ �"T"'' � f' 1 .�- }.
. .,� : ;.' . . -� . . � .- . . . f . . . f - . . . , � � - � . : ::.: :: _-:..;.�.___. � ---`�L--;� '_�.._:-1:�
�. _ _ . . . _ . •, '�. . ._ _ , , : .--. .i. �. � .. '. , � �
. _., : -� . . . .. f• : . . : i : ' . ' '� ^ . ' . • _ ' * . : - - � . . . • • . . . _ . , ' � _ ,.� ' ►•- ...�.. � : T + �.' . . • 1. r-
� �. T t � r t� F
. . . . i _ . [ . � . : . . . � . . -'_ • � ' • � . � -Li �i } .•+. 1'� i'� �i ��1, .±-lt1
.. . ._3 .._ . j....;..._,-�-_�:��:b� _::.��- .�_.
- . a ... . . .. . . . . - -
ri/�r,f�r = �oh,.J �jo �-f/� ,7�e�,�.L
� /� -, , 7L� c� � . �r
��
:
�
�
1
May 19, 1997
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
John and Joette Zembal, property owners of 6821 7th Street N.E., Fridley, MN,
have my permission to widen their garage which is near to m
6831 7th Street N.E., Fridle Y property, at
Y, MN.
A. Joyce Johnson �-,
6831 7th Street N.E. /�
FrJ�dley, MN 55432 (_ � �7�_�p�i�
i 1.08
l G G'j %� r vi.t� �, G:�C l r-�(. �i�c:v �
� � l
/ �l
\ � � � � •� G^ � � � .C� �-�/.
�
.� .
, � : :S C�l t � �/� � 1�c <�('
Jr
` \ �� '� `� S � �� 1•�� �,
�..,���� �� ��� � �- �
`� � �- �� ..� �; -� -� �, � �- fc
(�-�'U �� ��_.r _
� - � - �'i �
��i�_�/
`/� G" � � y( �' �C
`� �P �i'--c.-�'2_r � � -z��� Z�l�t .,� � �o c-.�
�� �'" 1 2 K � � U� �j ,P t� � `�cJ
. .f . . .�. - �. � � /
�%s���g _���; _`-�Lr_�^ 5 ��'-� Q� c» 5�-, 1
� / �
2 L'1 !� vY' i!? .r? d � %� r � (% � e � `f �t� .^ `�
��:���� '� �:�cro f �. s��� �� �
�
��5,
�v.� r� � y � � �� � z� � � � � r�
� � /�. li, � n ,,� �/'o u �� � s ._.. i �'I �� ��.i/�y .., �
, /
�> �
� �� 4r C'� :- --z �
� / �- I
. ��.
�'
`,. � � � � l.r� % Z— ( c
�1 �� � C.rJ �`� 5 l: e-��P �c-� 5� . l V�
�� _ (
� '�� � �� �� � ���� — � .S� �{ � �--
11.09
I
r�,,.
Planning Coorclinator
City of Fridley
Att: Scott Hickok
Re: VAR #9 7-11
John and ,joette Zembal
Garage setback variarice
Dear Sir:
In reference to the above variant, I vvish to register my opposition
and urge the council to reject it. I see no overriding reason for such
and do not want a precendent set for similar future requests.
Sincerely yours �
����.� -����
william s. rcnoff
6776-7th St. NE
Fridley MN 55432 .
11.10
, � �
. :1
. 'Y: a
f ��_
� •�''�
c .: ut> .,,..►'�M
�"'<�'x .. .
�� _
.�
� �� ii
:
s-� _-- -.'-._ - � '�
�` •'�
� � '�
.4.i. '.::� . . .
� f
� t
- � ,r �
� ,
,: � ��*� '- '�A ,
' : .:.3 r 3 Y:�,-. � � -. '' �
.. � w� . . :,. . . ,
_ ,._.> � . . ..
� . .. _ .... � .. .. .. � ._... ...
- : Ji .:_F`�,..
�:/ :
. _'.h�•� .. . .. . .
- V\ '� y.w�:.
L', : + '
.._ _ . R . . . . k_.'�.
!'" :�sis
e���
i.- s�.
� u��
' �ai
- G m ��
■
io�■
� ' �- = �ss
� " � �
� ���
.. . ".°�_ �.` . �1
I�fef
_ � -t:,� �i:N
ara
!� f '
..:i� .. Ng� ��Y.
� � - �, Ifc? Q C'. '
_ ' !.�"A N
',...L �+'S
� Q •.
�f'
— i i
�
.�,�., :,�;
<�:; .
Y"
��
iv�s��.�oi: v -
■rcanr_scex-�x=.-� _ ..
��
�
��i a
.�-
.a3 !�
(•
°� ' � `
� -;i � (l 3
V j . ,
�
5
+�q,� X �' ^
w�� _ .s£R^- .'...:.. .. . . •
i ,�d �" . . � .
+f` A�`,,... � . � . . .
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9 1997
PAGE 6
2- PUBLIC HEARW - CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #97 11
BY JOHN AND JOETTE ZEMBAL:
Per Section 205.05.B.(2).(b).1) of the F�idley Zoning Code, to reduce the setback
of an attached garage from 4 feet to 3 feet to allow the construc#ion of a 7 foot by
38 foot addition to an existing single car garage on Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek
Terrace Plat 4, generaily located at 6821 - 7th Street.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open ihe public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIG HEARING OPEN �1T 7:57 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is to reduce the setback of an,attached garage from 4
feet to 3 feet. If approved, the pe#itioner is proposing a 7 foot x 38 foot addition to the
existing attached single car garage located on the property.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is iocated on 7th Street north of Mississippi
�treet; 68th Avenue is to the south. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all
the surrounding properties. Cu�rently on the property is a single family dwelling unit
constructed in 1957. The dwelling has a single attached garage, In 1984, the petitioners
constructed a� addition to the rear of the existing garage and also constructed additional
living space off the rear of the dweliing. The existing garage is 12 feet x 38 feet. The
adjacent dwelling to the north has an attached garage approximately 5 feet from the lot
line.
Ms. McPherson stated the code typically allows the expansion of both single car garages
to within 4 feet of the common lot line which would provide 8 feet of separation. The City
has had two similar requests in the past at 6570 - 2nd Street and at 6830 Washington
Street. The City typically requires that the additions comply with #he building and fire
codes which requires a one hour fire constn.�ction and no openings in what would be the
north wall of the garage. The existing garage is similarly constructed with no openings in
the north side. �
Ms. McPherson stated the request is within previousfy granted approvals; therefore staff
has no recommendation for the Appeals Commission. !f the Appeals Commission
recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation:
The addition shall comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes for fire
protection requirements.
Ms. McPherson provided copies of two letters from persons within the notification area
who objected to the request. Those were submitted tate on Friday.
11.12
MO--- T��N by Dr. Vos, secondec�-by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive letters from Mr. Fred Lautizi
and from Mr. William Knoff. � �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kuechle asked the addresses of the two previous requests and the setback that was
approved.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance at 6830 Washington was to 2.2 feet, and the variance
at 6572 - 2nd Street was to 3 feet. The resident expressing an objection at 6820
Washington is adjacent to the person wlio received the variance at 6830 Washington
Street. The person objecting at 6776 - 6"h Street would be severa! houses to�the south of '�� `_-
the petitioner.
Ms. Beaulieu asked how much space was be#ween this house and the house next door to
the north.
Ms. McPherson stated the existing garage wal! of the subject property is 10 feet from the
property line. Out in the field, staff estimated that the garage on the property to the north
is approximately 5 to 6 feet from the property line. Right now, there is roughly 15 to 16
feet of separation.
Dr. Vos stated stafPs reasoning is that they could go within 4 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the conditions in the code section would typically allow going to
within 4 feet if that property next door has a double garage at least 4 feet from the
properly line. If the petitioner was to maintain a 4-foot setback, the neighbor to the north
would be able to expand to within 4 feet without a variance.
Ms. Zembaf stated they would like to add onto the garage to add space for another
vehicle and to store some of their equipment.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the existing ga�age was 38 feet deep.
Mr. Zembal stated, yes.
Ms. Beaulieu asked, if the Appeals Commission denied the request, could the petitioner
add 6 feet and have a 18 foot wide garage? Is that wide enough for two cars?
Mr. Zembal stated, no.
Ms. Zembal stated a standard garage door is 16 feet. For this to look right, there should
be �'�P sa�= �mcunt of brick a� both sides.
11.13
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9 1997 PAGE 8
Mr. Zembal stated adding 6 feet would make it pretty tight.
Ms. Beaulieu asked if there were any comments from other neighbors.
Ms. Zembal stated the neighbor to the north and the neighbo� across the street are at the
meeting, and they are okay with the request.
Mr. Kuechle stated the neighbor to the north is most affected by tfie constnaction.
Dr. Vos asked, if this petitioner adds on 7 feet, does it limit the neighbor to the north to go
within 4 feet of the property line?
f�ls. McPherson stated it does not. However, ihstead of the properfi� owner or future - �-
Nroperty owners being able to come in and have the City administratively approve the
construction, it forces them into a variance situation in the future. That will also require
them to have a one-hour fire wall. The building �equires that any structure within 5 feet of
the lot line must have a one-hour fire rating.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the neighbor to the north has a single car garage.
Ms. Zembal stated the neighbor has a 1.5 car garage:
Mr. Jachymowski stated he lives across the street, and he supports the request. There
have been a number of expansions of garages in the neighborhood since 1965. He
thought it improves the housing stock both from the situation of the present owners but
also for future owners and the City in general. They have a very nice neighborhood. This
addition is not going to detract from it. it is conducive to the neighborhood. Being across
the street, it does not affect them from a visual or aesthetic aspect. The homes, including
the Zembals, are very well kept. He did not think this would be a detriment at all.
Ms. Johnson stated she lived next door to the north. She has no problem with the
request. She has a garage and a half and a porch behind. As far as future expansion, it
is improbable. She saw no problems whatsoever.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECH�E DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:93 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated he would recommend approval with the stipulation about the building and
fire codes which is automatic, and as long as the neighbor to the north made the effort to
come and support the request.
Mr. Kuechl�- ^,gre�d. He thought the hardship is tfiat it is difficult tfl makA a garage
workable under 19 feet. He would add another stipulation that the addition be
11.14
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9 1997 PAGE 9
architecturaily compatibie with the existing structure.
Ms. Beaulieu agreed. She is troubled with the two who opposed the �equest, since they
are less affected than the two neighbors who are in attendance. It is one foot and that
should not negatively affect how it looks. She would be in favor of the request.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #97-11, by John and Joette Zembal, to reduce the setback of an attached
garage from 4 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of a 7 foot by 38 foot addition to an
existing single car garage on Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 4, generally located
at 6821 - 7th Street, with the following stipulations:
1. The addition shall comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes for fire
protection requirements.
2. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure.
UPON A VOlCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that because of the finro objections, the request will go to the City
Council on July 28. �
3.
Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission and ' Council have not met since the
last Appeals Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by M. eaulieu, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL TING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED THE JULY 9, 1997, APPEALS COMMfSSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:15 . .
Respectfully s
� l��C�' ;�% � G C�- �.�:�c.%
Lavonn ooper
Reco ing Secretary ; ��
11.15
MEMO�:ANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 24, 1997
TO: William Burns, City Manager ,��71 �
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution Authorizing an Application for the
Livable Communities Demonstration Account; Hyde
Park/57�' Avenue Improvement Project
Staff is preparing a Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant application for
the Metropolitan Council. The purpose of the grant application is to obtain additional
monies for design improvements as part of the 57"' Avenue improvement project. This
project has been scheduled for the 1998 construetion season. At the August 11, 1997
City Council meeting, the City Council will approve a contract for engineering design
services for this improvement project.
Staff prepared a project summary which was submitted as part of the grant pre-
application (summary attached). Comments from the Metropolitan Council staff were
received and will be addressed in the grant application. A component of the grant
application is a resolution authorizing the application. Staff has estimated the total
project costs associated with the 57"' Avenue improvement project. The estimated
budget is as follows:
Amount � Item
$ 42,210 Design fees
$ 15,950 Inspections
$ 10,000 Storm sewer
$100,000 Signals
12.01
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
July 24, 1997
Page 2
$500,000
$250,000
$ 72,000
$100,000
$ 30,000
$ 15,000
$15,000
$ 20,000
Total project cost (roadway, curb & gutter, pavement
markings, etc.)
Park & Ride next to Holiday Plus (improvements
completed by the MCTO)
Decorative street lighting
Landscaping
Bus stop improvements at University/57t'' Avenue
Off-street bikeway/walkway along the west side of
Main Street
Possible sidewalks along 57�' Avenue and 200
feet north on 3'd Street
Neighborhood-designed banners
The total project cost is $1,170,160. The City will request a grant in the amount of
$252,000 (the items noted in bold). If the City does not receive grant monies from the
Metropolitan Council, the banners, bus stop improvements, and the off-street
bikeway/walkway on Main Street will not be included as part of the 57"' Avenue
improvement project since they were not part of the original project scope. These items
were added to address the criteria of the Metropolitan Council. Public participation is a
key element as well as "transit and pedestrian connections" (bus stops, sidewalks, and
bikeways). The grant application does not bind the City Council to any of the proposed
improvements at this time.
Next Steps
Staff continues to work on the grant application, due August 8, 1997, which requires an
improvement schedule and an estimated budget. Copies of the comple#ed application
will be given to the City Council. Grants will be awarded in December 1997.
Staff has not had an opportunity to meet with othe� affected property owners (Hardees,
Cattle Company, and Super America) regarding the improvement plan. These
meetings will occur next month once the engineering consultant has been hired. The
neighborhood banners will require public participation with the Hyde Park neighborhood
to provide a design for the banners. These banners will be located on the decorative
street lighting on 57'h Avenue. An article about the improvement project was included in
the last edition of the City's Newsletter and the current edition of "Hyde Pa�k News",
which is currently under production (copy coming).
� 2.�2
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
July 24, 1997
Page 3
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the
application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant.
Note: Staff has not heard from Home Depot regarding their contribution for 50% of the
design fees. MCTO has yet to make a final determination regarding the Park & Ride.
MM/dw
M-97-325
12.03
�' ;
RESOLUTION NO. - 1997
A RESOLUTION AUTAORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM;
HYDE PARK/57� AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley is a participant in the Livable
Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 1996 as
determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible
to make application for funds under the Livable Communities
Demonstration Account; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the
City that meets the Demonstration Account's purpose(s) and
criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure adequate project administration;
and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all
applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract
agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota,
agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the
Demonstration Account applicat�on submitted on 1997.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized
to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf
of the City of Fridley and to execute such agreements as are
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
PASSED AND p,DppTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN AND FOR TAE CITY OF
FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF lgg�.
,
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
12.04
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
Comments on the Project Summary for Fridley, Hyde Park/57th
Avenue Project
June 30, 1997
DESIGN CENTER COMMENTS
Stren hs:
The concept and project could become a key community building strategy by reconnecting
existing communities to the changing transportation systems and servicing residents' needs ibr
access to these systems.
Weaknesses:
The proposed project would widen streets--is this compatible with a safer, pedestrian-oriented
street system?
Suggestions/ uestions:
Is this project part of a larger citywide effort to develop a model which can be used throughout
the city?
How is MCTO connected to your efforts?
Are there local transit systems such as social service providers who might be. interested in how
and where these transit points are located and designed? How are these revitalized street links
connected into the city's open space system and/or to schools and shopping?
Will the transit hub in fact be a transit hub? It appears to be more a park and ride facility.
COUNCIL STAFF COMMENTS "
Making this area pedestrian-friendly is a worthy but difficult challenge, due to the types of land
uses at the south end.
Transportation staff believes that the area is not appropriate for a full-scale transit hub. Rather,
an improved bus stop/plaza area and a new parla�ide could better serve Route 24 express trips.
v:Uibrary�commundv\demo\democom.doc 12.05
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FUND
1997 LlVABLE' COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
PROJECT NAME: Hyde Park/57"' Avenue Improvement Project
PROJECT LOCATION: No�thwest quadrant of Interstate 694 and Trunk Highway 47
(University Avenue), Fridley, Minnesota. Interstate 694
north to 61 gt Avenue, University Avenue west to Main Street.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The Hyde Park Improvement project, using 57"' Avenue as
the focus, will provide the public infrastructure to link
housing, industry, and retail in a unique, existing, mixed use
neighborhood. The proposed public infrastructure includes:
� Widened 57"' Avenue with improved traffic control and
access �
• Off-street bikeway along the west side of Main Street
connecting 57�' and 61 St Avenues plus sidewaik connections
from 57"' Avenue north into the neighborhood, and along the
north side of 57"' Avenue
• Improved bus stops and new transit hub at 57"' Avenue
• Uniform landscaping and design elements like specialty
street lighting with neighborhood-designed banners along
57"' Avenue
Hyde Park is one of the oldest subdivisions in the City of Fridley. Hyde Park was
identified in 1995 as a focus area for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
housing programs. The City embarked on a multi-faceted process to improve this 16
block area.
Since 1995, the City and HRA have:
• Conducted two focus groups with single and multiple family owners, and completed
a tenant survey
• Acquired and demolished 7 substandard homes; total cost $294,000
• Constructed 3 new homes
• Provided 31 grants and loans for single and multiple family rehabilitation projects
with a total value of $158,966 (public funds only)
• Acquired Frank's Used Cars for a residentiai redevelopment project
12.�7
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FUND
1997 LlVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
Page 2
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION, cont.
• Provided Tax Increment Financing for a commercial redevelopment project on the
north side of 57"' Avenue
• Contracted with the Center for Energy and Environment for rehabilitation assistance
and "Hyde Park newsletter"
• Established a strong crime prevention presence through the use of Neighborhood
Resource Officers and regular crime prevention rneetings
SPECIAL FEATURES: Hyde Park has:
• A strong sense of neighborhood since 1973
• A unique mix of single and multiple family dwellings
(duplexes to 11 unit buildings)
• Located near commercial and industrial developments
• Strong "gateway" entrance into the City of Fridley with transit
services available
STATUS OF PROPOSAL: The City is currently in the design stages for the 57"' Avenue
improvements. Funding sources are being identified.
CONTACT PERSON: Michele McPherson
Planning Assistant
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue
Fridley, MN 55432
� 2.�8
� _ � a � ,-�� '
. � �� �
'` � ■�s -
.
.� � �■ �� .,,
Q -- � �-� �. �,-;., �
� . i rr ..t. i7P.���� �S.y I.
� � 2` � — -
' s ' ` t -� � �
' r � � � � ` .-P
' � _ � �: �'�:.� ,_`a. �p,� ii
i _ I ; -F tl��=
" ' � ��
�, ' ��
� f '�.. i ! _ 1 i J �� ��„� J_�� ` � ~ t��1
:. j �59
�3.* �
�
' i � � 5 I �� +£� ���.�
. i �'. . Y . , _4 0��
- - . _ ►:� ; �� = I � I ° ■� �� �� �
• c r • - ,A � : � � _. d E ' �i I��' �� �� �'i
.. .,.�; � �� �� �I
- : er � !� !7i �l
�t►11�.1�■•
� � � ������
-_ �. ° , �I = �,i,, ±� A�: � �� �� �
� - b - �-`� �' b �y. �¢\� -pg�-y� -p-
. ' ' 'y 9 : �{fl. ' � L=� h� h�'S8 9 �y - �
� ..:_.. - r ' . I ' 1 •"
�����I���� ��ll ',I,L��i G:���i
_ ,
.� � ;..�� � � ��d�A�� ���111��
- _ _=-_ _ __-- ��■ �� �� �
: _ _ -_ -- ��„J�==��.
� �� .��K� �r� �
�i� � r � �I
� - = � � � � i � �.'�
1 r �- - ,� �;
: _ _;. • .� �'
�; . � � � �� � 'rt -� -.K i
,;,;.m,,�
��
�
�
� ,F�:
8::�z13 �
��' �
'�1
�
� . fiolume l, Number 4
,�, .,�►- •
d'e Pa�l� Ho
y' ��sr Nervs
�g
� Winter 19 9 6
Frzdley's HRA Rehabi�YtatYOn Loan PY•o ram U date
g p
In Septernher of 1995 the Fridle�- Housin� and
Redevelopinerit lluthority (HRA) uriveiled a special
housirig pro�rarn available onl�� tu propert�� o�•riers
in the H��de Park neighborhood. The I-�RA teamed-
up �vith the Center for Ener�� and En��ironrner.t
(GEE), a �Yliruieapolis-based non-profit, to admi :►is-
ter tiie prograrns. In conjunction �vith CEE, the
HRr� offer� �=�,000 lo�v-interesr cleferred loans to
l�f� �d �
loans in Hyde Park Tlie chart shown below pro-
vides a brP,�zkdoRm of the loan activity.
Pro er T Dollar Value No.
Sin�le Family I-fu�nc .`�i53,448 10
Rental Propert�• $?7,114 1?
Total $130,562 2�
qua i i� �uu{�ert5� o�vners. The deferred loans must I In addition to deferred loans, the HI�1 has 5`%
be iriat<�liecl h�• the o���ei-, but clon�t have to be Iiuine impro�Tement Ioans and a lirriited amount of
repaid uritil tlie property is sold. OR�ners can use grant funds available: L�o�v-interest fiznds are also
their oR�i iunds or access one of se�-eral special a��ailable to rental property o�vners. For more infor-
financing proa ains offered through CEE. mation contact Donna Krech, CEE Loari Officer at
335-2651 or stop by the Fridley Municipal Center -
Over the last 15 months, the HRA has made 22 - on Tuesday evenings from .5:00 .p.m, to 7:00, p.m.:
New Homes Built on : S1ip-0ff 5900 block of 2nd street arid built a home which is `
� � . _ � currently for sale. :: . .
This summer contractors removed the off ramp '
from Universit5� Avenue to 3rd Street near the infer- The HRA.purchased four more homes this.year and .
section of 60th Avenue. ..The roadway, �vhich �vas plans to demolish the structures in January. The
originally built to serve businesses in the Hyde Park properties zvere purchased on a voluntary basis and
neighborhood, was no longer needed due to declin- R�ill be redeveloped into neR� housing in the f'uture.
ing comriiercial activity. In 1994 the Gity of Fridle��
purcha.sed a commercial buildin� immediatel}� For more in%rmation on the Housinb Replacement
south of tlie slip-off ramp and razed the structure. Program call Grant Fernelius, Housuig Coordinator
The City in turn conveyed the parcels to the Fridley at 572-3591.
HRA for t�ie purpose of redeveloPing the site.
Construction k�e�,an on t�vo ne�v liou5c�5 tlus Past
sprin� by Taiiis, Inc. of I�ridle�'. O(i��er Tam pur-
cf�i<LSed tlie sice fro►ii tl�ie H1�1 ai�id si�r��icd a deve(o��-
riietit u�;c���e�uc�it t_c� eiisure t.l�i�it tiie l�urnes ��-ere coti-
strucCe<1. :��Ir. Tiiu� ,_i1s�� ���urclias���I �a tliircl lot ir� t(ic
12.10
r==�
� -- -�
Z�bS9 NW '�(a�pia�
�� anuany �(�is�aniun �E�9
�a�ua� ��di�iunW �(a�pu�
`ddH �alA!a� lo �l!�
Neigilborhood SuI'vey Mark your Calendars for th
e Spring
� ' Home Remodeling and Garden Fair
Sinc;e the City and HRA bc�gan working iri Hyde., .
Park last year, a sigruficant ainounf oi public ir�vest- � The 2nd Annual Fridley Home Remodelin and
ment �as occ:urred =- We are interested in kno � b
;_�lg-_ Garden Fair witl kie held on Saturday, Apri15;� 1997 -�
what you think about " our ne rhood and � , _ -
y . lghb° ° from 10 00�am_ to`3.00.p:m: at.the Fndley High�
whether the hous ro ams are : ` � - , ,
� p � �?� a��eT= School,:;6000 West Moore Lake Drive: Come see a
ence. Please take a few moments to complete the � wide -vaTi f' d
attached survey arid return it in the self addressed,
sta.mped envelope.
eLy o ven ors ranguig from wu�dow con-
tractors; siding companies, and other remodelers to
lawri and garden experts. Brin� your home
improvement quesrions and get them answered b}�
the pros. Learn about financing programs and a
free remodeling advisor service available through
the Fridley HRA Hope to see you there!
SEASONS
�REETINGS
12.11
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 25, 1997
TO: William Burns, City Manager��
�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Inclusion of Street Lights in
the Intersection Improvement Project for Trunk
Highway 65/Lake Pointe Drive/Centra! Avenue
BACKGROUND
An informational hearing was held on July 10, 1997 at the Housing & Redevelopment
Authority regular meeting regarding the proposal to install 40 foot tall street lights along
Highway 65. The minutes for the HRA meeting are still being prepared; however, eight
people spoke in opposition to the proposal. There was no testimony in support of the
proposal.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
The attached resolution, if approved, would authorize inclusion of the street lights in the
intersection project and authorize one-half of the cost, not to exceed $60,000.
A similar resolution is also scheduled for HRA action on August 14, 1997.
6 D/dw
M-97-330
13.01
RESOLUTION NO. - 1997
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCLUSION OF STREET LIGHTS IN
THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY
65/LAKE POINTE DRIVE/CENTRAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, on March 13, 1997, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority
authorized the execution of a contract with Short-Elliot-Hendrickson
for the development of the final plans and specifications for the
improvement of the Trunk Highway 65/I�ake Pointe Drive/Central Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 1996, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority
authorized the City to proceed with an ISTEA application on behalf of
the HRA to construct the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council feels that it is appropriate to include
street lights extending from the intersection project to East Moore
Lake Drive on either side of Highway 65; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary analysis reveals that approximately 25, 40 foot
ta11, 400 watt high pressure sodium lights spaced at one per 150 feet
is appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorize
inclusion of the street lights into the intersection improvement
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council will fund up to one-half
of the costs of the street lights, not to exceed $60,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1997.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
13.02
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
� c�
-177 ( 11 • J 1 LUt- �n �n�G.J � � � � •� ��-^� ��- . -'
.:.Op
Y.' -0'
L
+ u
\ �
� Z
� � i
o �� m
� o�� �
.ny � r �i
0 ��
Z �� 1� ;
O H,�' � ff
�� �
a`�
;, D
= �j p
a �(�-1
l_�!
! �r g Ti
F�
� �4 � .. X
� � $.7$
% � �' � � �
ti
:F� T ,aM
°. y Z �
F
u
I�.Op �
. u.00
1C.00
0 2a.00
ZB. �.'.
2I.Ol
LWIM�IpE SDECIF1CalI0iK
F[TTE� fNTE�L. w� •:unTKM CO"iSTPUCT10w..
Hl1US1 :�?.8�• ntGri [ Ja-�i' Ota. CLL
atu+lw�+ CpNST�f_TIM.
4EF�ECTOI•: Nr� E��E7��E11-pQOiSTCIL�uflt+.
4ERECiOSFWSPVEO vlin .C��v�rSO C�'n�C04
c(�TER.
OppF� YINJE{7t@1 �QOEO 1.C�•�JiC.
LEr+S �bCeFlr+rt �cr.n 0.�SS
WycEl: C�.r.D.n. GtiSKET BE7✓'cv Ct.iS tE.�i-
�lEiTOi.
L ECTRi[.� Rr{KtCArIWS
B�LL�iT: XJO v�iT/ v0.T COQE. 4yD COI�
�plJ�fE0 SFiTWINI�RE.
'p(rx e•Se �vcC4�tN.
��e�250R�P�T tIL(n /'t2S9F� u10/lM. .
BV OTNPRi•
ao�E s�ec�nc•7tWs
•eK: ].O. OIA. S7E0. fV�-
u�thSl�wGtO�Y0v1iA�0�►�E� v��it.�y.8.5•.utn.
IOK� DUF:: �IIQl�O ST4.l�nT SiEEt, �O.o• ot•.
% 12' rul.
wNOOIE� Mlnl CWER.
P�SE fOVER� A�UM1M1Na. x 1•.0' nlGn »OT�[[[ [�S*
B+Sc: C�I�+W�i�.r��irYteev iof��E rL�iF.
uO�A�4� xrEp..�wC�6WliS OM�+ i3 O��BO�If
SStLLE.
F{wl3r: 8�udh wtCrttCCC��� ��
InTES:
t. fi%TtRE Tll BE�R •tM.' uwl
yvj(�2tf fpy YL'1 LQIITI[11C•'
�. aLL VIM COMrMCTIONS TC � MI� Y(iu
vtct wr..
3. �SxT1JSE SU°OL[EO VtTN TE�INPI B��R TnaT
YSIL AC��PT lIP TO 4�6 �tAMIMDt vlkE.
e. B�uaST � ��[T �cntxe�i��nr�ocrrc�i��iiµ Pl.!w;t.
FD2 Eair C�L� CT 1csGM,f1,Y K��'4. �
�. y,[ �ponptip[�n N� LUKiN�IQE OfT�TLS-
�.7$" 014. CO+OuIT
UPENING.
�i.�s
t�. ,a
13.::0 OIA. B(L' f L1RilE.
�USi sUWIMD� TR+NSITIOn CO�ER. �SE OET.I�
t �+0 Xn�E �
�_TQIKTITIO�+�PoR SECC�RINf.
�10.0' 0[a. STEEt 1UBE. .
�. «�
��.o- : s.o- �•w�ue,
ir� ca�e.
�5' riK. STEEI B�:E VI�TE-
/� T+0-P1KE GSl .uwlren
/ PiSE CO"FF�
/^�4� ��_ 3.0' � c�.n�
'�r�i��:
M. I ` i3,5' ....� .....
.� o ..
-�r� cG:
NOTE: ;@.00tr.�t�D� 1G C�� .
.v..rn . . tiwen
����� 5 � �
COMPARISON OF COSTS
EXECUTIVE
FONTANA
HUMBOLDT
$104, 000
($4, 000/std )
$106, 600
($4,100/st� )
$111,800
($4, 300/std )
FRANKLiN iii $'iO4,000
($4, 000/std )
SHEPHERD'S HOOK $119,600
($4, 600/std )
13.04