Loading...
HISTORY i M ,I i May 3, 1966 I Mr. Kenneth W. Campbell , Anoka County Auditor, Anoka, Minnesota Attn:II L. GagRe: Aud.e Sub. #153, Parcel #740 Dear Mr. Campbel i I 1 According to Fridley City Code, this split cannot be made, i Mr. Julkowski was given a letter regarding the taxes and this was satisfactory to him i I Yours truly, 1 I INervin J. Hermann, City Assessor, wli:et ki I I� i ' I Ii 1 , I - SMJtCT C ity 04 Frielley Permit No. AT T►rFTOPOFTMETwlilb BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Receipt No. ------ COK!JUWITY DEVELOPMENT DIY. PROTECTIVE iECTIOM DEPT. CITY MALL FRIDLEY 564-32 _6 _ %„i 612-960-3460 "-UbER REV. DATE I=AQE O.s APPROVED'Oy 910-FIA 0 1/15/73 1 1 800 Job Address : Legal --�- "� Tract or Addition See Attached Descr. IM-7,60L-540Sheet property Owner Address Zip Phone /� ✓r�-D ,—�4t-�UCI vN 1� T'r SZ(,7C�=-tJT{'vti�-{�y, f� t �54-2� 57 -1l Contractor Address Zip Phone Lic nse No. ' rc i.tect or Designer Address Zip Phone License No. 1I U,4AM 5vt-i 9 7i' V, '��4Q) 10410 Engineer Address Zip Phone License No. Use of Building CL MML- Class of Work []Remove _ (&ew ❑ Addition ❑ Alteration �Repair Move Describe Work Change of Use From To Signature SPECIAL ASSESS1,1E'NTS : If lateral assessments have not been placed on this property, an agreement mrist bei signed, agreeing to assume such lateral assessments before a permit will be issuede Agreement Necessary: Agreement Unnecessary: Finance Director >- OUTSTDE UTILITIES: Sewer Elevation: Water Elevation: Stub Location: Stub Location: Lu N BUILDING INSPECTION h- Plumbing H.V.A.C. Electrical Fire Inst. U Signature & Date Approved cc 0 u. Registered Engn. Stamp. Legal Description Check Exterior Devel. Check Performance Bond Check Easements, R/W, Special Agreements _ Final Approval Date Certificate of Occupancy Date FOR CITY USE OILY DIMENSIONS : Length: Height: Cu. Ft. Width: Sq. Ft-. Accessory Buildings : Length: Height: _ Cu. Ft. Width: Sq. Ft. VALUATION: Sq. Ft. X Cost = Valuation ) Total Valuation Basement X Cost = Valuation ) PERMIT FIEE: Residential Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $5.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $5.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $20.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001 .00 to $50,000.00 $89.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $50,001..00 to $100,000.00 $151..50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $1.50 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. PERMIT FEE: Commercial and Industrial Total Cu. Ft. X $2.15/1,000 cu . ft. Permit Fee X PIAN CIPECK: Take one half of permit fee = STATE SURCIIARCE: — T ^Valuation X $.50/$1,000.00 = PUI1 FOR•iANCIE BOND VALUATION TOTAL FEE Blacktop 1.5_0/sg. yd. Curbing; 2.00 lin. ft. Sod _0.40scI. cy i. Fencing _ 2,_0_0 lin. ft._ 13vshes and 'frees 5.00 - 30.00 TOTAL DOND VALUE i OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 12, 1975 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance to reduce the front hard setback from eighty (80' ) feet to thirty- five (35' ) , Section 205:103, 4A (2) and to reduce the:side yard setback from fifteen (15' ) to five (5' ) feet, Section 205.103, 4B, to allow construction of an office building to be located on Parcel #540, Part of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision #153, the same being 1040 - 52nd Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Bergstedt-Anderson Realty, 5247 Central Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota) . Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM DRIGANS CHAIRMAN APPEALS COMMISSION At.If CORNER I .���. � '.... -•Jµ°7-- •- . • rte_.. . .......5ly/id!<JM---_1._.=__—. .._.. if i7 - , ' ' -` fit.),-!J -3•i��� Z� 1 • w � ;A;• tie �� �� ♦ � . so TD 4 y 4e /�--�•/ Q ijL>ii� Y 'Yi � _ 2 Rif La � F , Ie AUD' ITORS up w Aft W_ � ;s. t�•_� I I t,i6pl rya � � $ a -N '� 6 �f,.r�°,,,�` .N•fc'T•f9 _ ' M res. w 2,521 SD- 5 a - e 1z"7/o/d"q.✓u/k orr A, N �� ii P7 I qr sn r. �,D 1 �r b' I y1 "R C '•' �e J3-/3-54 = �.. Lt' 9 d ` g io l i N .J• s 207 12 20 i I1 1 �'etM1 D rD R.-6� �Ati�a eo��?.c61Da �• ,y Y` C 80 3v u 9e I C'14.J; .I t gpt1%� RdJ.N / .��bM1 al. e. R.N�, •r3 Sfyez�y/f f P) CE lr IT ` C�� =tN j � i b 4 DV ._CIf~ '!t e\' J ..i yJ` .•/i r � � RC1°e e 17 '1 ••D-1�1 Y�$ ' ���BoJ ��� IY.t*b° a' ''.-. e5-fie Nay,�"wU �,! � °' '�& -. v ( '`� tT M f,. t d ��9, R•N N 2 t'�';e -.. EA sk A •2 .r�'t� 1 �'c�D .°, a6't^ e: ,.t,' ' ��`}♦. •, ,I 1t7.. _ al�,y ;? .e f ./t t` d 5tit tY .�� ; �a:,,,� 7=� ♦ i ii ° j11"i b rr)fior'fi t6 $.ti Rj moo' ` �l b i ter of ti ue„ /1 .`.��.c 9 •� /a a'tAl 0•*, .2,:�i i 'I r ♦ e ti 2` Z to ty� '. PIERCE //"/a) 'O �q� gyp! '�` .�'' I r -r•.s..�•, v a 1!�yi e,♦�".��;�'r1 JI�r �f� ;�� , `} �© iii � ,� �x ,/, + ,I yii Ad •, i,.,. a :.l AD /e M '�' 4J'tirr rr � r � •s. Land Planning 6875-Homy'`GS,VE. Lond Surveying Minfwc ols32. Soils Tes finy ENGINEERING t I N C. Minnesofo C!vil fi municipn/ SUnsel4--6066 Ingineermy En9 l'n ee r s Sur ve ors 0)MV C) ToL* BERNARD JULKQ NSKI NORTH LINE OF LOT 6 L 0 T 6 NORTH LINE DF LOT '1,3r S2 Ha AVE N.E. STREET EASEMENT Suxlet I"--SOS 1ST UTILITY Ef SE MENT r _ ° Denotes Iron r_ Li Li Li U. a f- o Q�ut FcmNDwrIOK N jN ONLY i WN zzW ren lw. M LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF' LOT 'I Ln Lco AtA �Ia ,N Z.N xW A- L T � ,� r R q c n � 3 0 J _j ww Z3 iW J J3: W z t- 110 110 �SOUTi4 LINE OF LOT 'I /hereby cerfiry Eliot lhif fs o lrue and correct represenlof ion era survey eche boundaries gPlhe abo,r A rc Aed land,and #Ph locoi%n el'all burldiny,lhcrcon,and oll risible aranachmeds,if any.{nrn or orf said land. As surveyed bq me 1`fffs 21St dey a nu a" A.D.CSUB UR BAN L-Mi NEERING, INC. 6agineers fr Surreyors SEE SHEET 2 FOR DESCRIPTION 02 6, �—�~- 50134 , SHEET 1 OI` 2 Lond Plonniny 6875-,gyhmy;CS#E. Land Survey;7y AMneq)whs32. Soi/5Tcshiy ENGINEERING, INC. 111nnesolo Civil b Yun;dlwl SUnv 4-6066 En9ineerin9 En9 ineers SurvecJors TRACT I That part of Lots 6 and 7 Auditor's Subdivision No. 153 Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Lot 7 and a line which is parallel with and 257 feet East of the West line of Section 25, Township 30, Range 24; thence East along said South line of Lot 7 a distance of 170 feet; thence North and parallel with said West line a distance of 120 feet; thence West and parallel with said South line of Lot 7 a distance of 110 feet; thence North and parallel with the West line of said section to the North line of Lot 6; thence West along said North line to its intersection with aforesaid line which is 257 feet East of the West line of Section 25; thence South to the point of beginning. Subject to all easements of record. 50/34 A ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1040 - 52ND .AVENUE N.E. BY: BERGSTEDT REALTY GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This permit is .for the construction of a new two story, 98' x 37' , office building at 1040 - 52nd Avenue N.E. The building will be constructed of raked pre-cast concrete panels with the entrance facing east along the east side of the property. They will be sharing the driveway to the west of the apartment complex to gain access to the property and will be providing 46 parking stalls which will be shared by the agar-b..ent complex. Landscaping is approved according to approved site plan. The building meets all code requirements with the exception of the side yard setback from 15' to 5' and the front yard setback from 80' to 35' , both of which have been recommended for approval by the Appeals Commission. ENGINEERING: There doesn't appear to be any engineering problems. Drainage off the site could be handled either by draining to 52nd Avenue N.E. or by hooking to Columbia Heights Storm Sewer to the back of their property. ENVIRONMENTAL: There will be no. detrimental environmental effect with the construction of this facility. The construction of the parking facility will provide needed additional parking for the apartment complex at night and on the weekends. The apartment complex is• presently short about 40 parking stalls. This construction will provide an additional 46 stalls. BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: 1. Draw up agreements for joint usage of parking and driveway facilities. 2. Submit copies of drainage and grading to the Engineering Department for approval and appropriate direction. 3. That curbing be placed on the east side of the entr.•ance driveway and along the north line of the apartment parking facility to a point adjacent. to the east property line of the office building property. (as shown on approved plan) . j�✓ to Pa e2 jJ FIs Commission Meeting - August 12, 1975 Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the addition would be tied into the existing garage. Mrs. Hinrich said that it would be, but they hadn't decided if they would have two doors on the garage or change it to one garage door. , Mrs. Wahlberg said that the vacation request had been considered by the Planning Commission at their August 6th meeting. There was a 10 foot easement that was on Lots 5 and 6. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation request because this represented no conflict with the adjacent property owner, and was agreed to by all the utility companies, and recommended that the encroachment be allowed into this easement while the vacation process was in progress . Mr. Mattson said that. this easement had no utilities in it. - At the time this property was platted, an easement was put at this Location in case the City would need it in the general scheme for storm drainage. After this was platted, this was handled in another fashion so this easement no longer serves any purpose. MOTION by Gabel , seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, a.11 voting aye, Vice Chairperson Wahlberg declared the hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. ` Mrs. Wahlberg said that the shape of the lot prohibits any expanding .of the garage without encroachment into the normal side yard -setback. q Mr. Kemper said this house was placed square to the street, so this garage location couldn't have been changed. Mrs. -Gabel said she saw no problems with this request. MOTION by Gabel , seconded by Kemper, to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet: to allow the enlargement of a single garage to a double garage on Lot; 6, Block 1 , Brookview Terrace 2nd Addition, the same being 981 Rice Creek Terrace. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT_ YARD SETBACK FROM EIGHTY FEET (80' ) TO THIRTY-FIVE FEET 35' ), SECTION 205.103, 4A �2 AND TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARC SETBACK FROM FIFTEEN FEET 15' TO FIVE FEET 5' j, SECTION 205.103, 48, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED_ON PARCEL_#540, PART OF LOT 7, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 153, THE SAME BEING 104Ui52ND AVEFTUE N.E. , FRIDLEY, . MINNESOTA. REQUEST BY BERGSTEDT-ANDERSON REALTY, 5247 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. , FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel , to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice Chairperson Wahlberg declared the Public Hearing open at 7:59 P.M. Mr,. Bill Jacobson, architect,.-representing Bergstedt Realty was present. Mr.. Jacobson said they proposed to construct this office buil-ding on•.property which was behind Robert Hall on 52nd Avenue N.E.. Ile said this was an L shaped parcel of land which was adjacent to apartments on 52nd Avenue also. He said that in conjunction with building this office building, there would be shared parking with the apartment building. . This parking would be available to the apartments after 5:00 P.M. and on week-ends. lie said that the portion of the property that faced 52nd Avenue was only 60 feet wide. . If they met the code requirements of having a 15 foot setback for each side yard, they would only e _ 10A As Commission Meeting .-__August 12, 1975 Page 3 gave 30 feet in which to construct this office building, and the land was too expensive to build that small of an office building because it would never pay for itself. He said. the reason he was asking for a variance from 80 feet to 35 feet was because they thought this building would look better if it was lined up with .the setback of the apartment buildings. He said this building would be 40 feet long on the north and south sides, if the sideyard variance was approved. He said this would allow them to have 30 feet of office space inside the building. He said that if they had to meet the 80 foot setback, this would require the parking to be in front and would reduce the parking spaces by a great number besides not being attractive. By having the parking at the back of the building, this would tie in with the parking lot of theapartments which would be more convenient for shared parking. He said that Robert Hall owned the vacant parcel west of this locatation, and although Mr. Bergstedt has written to them repeatedly, and tried in every way to communicate with Robert Hall , he has had absolutely no answer on this, so the assumption would have to be made that Robert Hall may want this parcel for their own expansion. Mrs. Gabel as`ced how many offices would be in this building. Mr. Jacobson said that the proposal had changed from the plan presented. Orginally this was going to be a 10,000 square foot building, but it has now been reduced to 6,000 square feet. Instead of being 40' x 120' it will be 40' x 98 . At the present time there are six tenants who will rent space in the building which will use 5,000 square feet of the building. He said the type of businesses going in here will be sales representatives and real estate companies. lie said these 6 tenants have 'been sharing office space in Skywood Mall . Mrs. Gabel said this shouldn't generate any addition traffic in the area then. Mr. Jacobson said it shouldn't because they would still be in the same general area. Mr. Jacobson said that when they reduce the size of this building by 24 feet they intend to take this off the back of the building, but if the City wanted them to take it off the front of the building instead , they would do this. He said one of the considerations for having this line- up with the apartment: building was so that they could save a large oak tree with this location. Mrs. Wahlberg said that would reduce the front yard variance from 80 feet to 59 feet, which would be a little closer to the Code requirement. Mr. Jacobson said this would be a full two story building, a precast concrete structure. Mrs. Wahlberg said that this would be a little lower than the apartment buildings. Mr. Kemper asked hove many parking spaces the apartment residents would have to share. Mr. Mattson said the code requirement for parking spaces in 1963 was 64 stalls. There were 73 stalls provided, which exceeded the code requirement at that time. Since then our code has changed, and' they now need 116 stalls, so they were short the 43 stalls that would be provided with this plan. Mrs.- Wahlberg said she questioned the hardship in the request for a sideyard variance from 15 feet.to five feet. Mr. Jacgbson said the reason they wanted to have this variance was because the tenant of the office facing 52nd Avenue wanted 1200 square feet of space, and this was how they would meet that request. Mr. Jacobson said they could have constructed this building further back on this property and met all the code requirements , but they couldn't provide the shared parking for the apartments then. 10 B gals Commission Meeting - August 12, 1975 _ _ Page 4 Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Mattson if the administration had any negative comments on this proposal . Mr. Mattson said the City has wanted a proposal for this property that would provide additional parking for the apartment complex. lie said that when Mr. Julkowski owned this property, he said it was too expensive just to make the entire parcel a parking lot, which was probably true. Ile said this parcel had been just sitting vacant for a long time, and this seemed like a good proposal . Mrs. Gabel said she had no objection to this building being lined up with the apartment complex, and she would like to seethe large oak tree saved, if possible. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel , to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice Chairperson Wahlberg closed the hearing at 9:30 P.M. Mr. Kemper said he thought this was a good plan. He couldn 't see a better way of developing this property. Mrs. Wahlherg said this was an odd shaped lot, and this would seem like the best plan As .th-re2was a need for the shared parking, but she still questioned the variance to the side yard setback, .when this ten feet could be used for landscaping. Mrs. Gabel said she thought they had a good landscaping plan, considering the land -they had to work with. Mrs. Gabel asked Mr. Jacobson to bring the landscape plan back up to the members for their review. Mr. Jacobson said that on the west side of the building there would be five flowering crabs. On the north side of the building they would have 3 Norway Maples. He said the front of the building would have ground cover that would stay green the year around. He said the construction of this building would meet all the Code requirements. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commission had always been cautious about recommending approval of a variance for architectural design. It was felt that there may be some alternative that could be worked out. Mr. Jacobson said that if this variance wasn't granted, it would cut down on the number of tenants they could have in this building. Mr. Mattson said it was generally the policy of the Appeals Commission to be quite harsh in granting this type of variance, but he said odd shaped lots are uncoverable in the code. Mrs. Wahlberg said they had to take into consideration that this building could have been located on this property strictly to code, if the petitioner didn't have to give consideration to the shared parking for the apartment complex. Mr. Jacobson said there would be legal agreements drawn up on the shared parking and the shared driveway. MOTION by Kemper, *seconded by Gabel , to recommend to Council approval of the front yard and side yard variances on part of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, to allow the construction of an office building, the same being 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. subject to the lot split tieing approved by -Council . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENTEEISM Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 3 BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: 1 . That Minco Products, Inc. dedicate an easement for a bicycle-pedestrian trail over the 60 foot portion of property along the west property line. 2. (a) That concrete curbing be placed along that portion of the parking lot and driveway, along 73rd Avenue N.E. Also along the south side of the proposed addition, allowing for service entrances in order to provide a five foot planting area along the building. (b) That temporary blacktop curbing be placed 5 feet off of the west wall of the proposed addition with a rock fill between the curb and the building in order to allow for further expansion of the facilities to the west at some future time. (c) That Minco Products will complete concrete curbing on the parking facility at that time when they reach full potential use of their property. Mr. Clark said that Minco Products had an office building and part of this building was the manufacturing portion of the building. Across the street from this complex, they also occupy the old Takkenin Machine building. They now wish to add on to the manufacturing portion of the building, which would be west of the existing structure. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations. He said they met all the setback requirements and parking requirements of the Zoning Code., Mr. Clark said that through the years this business has been well kept, well maintained, and Minco was a good tenant. Mr. Harris asked who was going to maintain the 60 foot easement? Mr. Clark said this was already an easement for North Surburban Sewer District and Northern States Power Company. Mr. Karl Schurr said that they mow it and maintain it. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report for a plant addition to Minco Products, Inc. , at 7300 Commerce Lane N.E. and recommend approval of this building permit. Mr. Scott said that Minco was a good neighbor and it was a pleasure to have such a company in Fridley. He would certainly like to see their expansion go forward. UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOR A..,BUIk9ING -P T REQUEST BY BERGSTEDT RFAL_TY, FORiAN OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT10 0 52ND AVENU N.E. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This permit is for the construction of anew two story, 98' x 37' , office building at 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. The building will be constructed of raked pre-cast concrete panels with the entrancefacing east along the east side of the property. They will be sharing the driveway to the west of the apartment complex to gain access to the property and will be providing 46 parking stalls which will be shared by the apartment complex. Landscaping is approved according to approved site plan. Planning Commission Meeting- August 20, 1975 Page 4 The building meets all code requirements with the exception of the side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet and the front yard setback from BO feet to 35 feet, both of which have been recommended for approval by the Appeals Commission. ENGINEERING: There doesn't appear 'to be any engineering problems. Drainage off the site could be handled either by draining to 52nd Avenue N.E. or by hooking to Columbia ' Heights. Storm Sewer to the back of their property. ENVIRONMENTAL: There will be no detrimental environmental effect with the construction of this facility. The construction of the parking facility will provide needed additional parking for the apartment complex at night and on the weekends. The apartment complex is presently short about 40 parking stalls. This construction will provide an additional 46 stalls. BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: f 1 . Draw up agreements for joint usage of parking and driveway facilities. i 2. Submit copies of drainage and grading to the Engineering Department for approval and appropriate direction. 3. That curbing be placed on the East side of the entrance driveway and along the north line of the apartment parking facility .to a point adjacent to the east property line of the office building property. (as shown on approved plan) . { Mr. Clark reviewed the staff report and the building permit stipulations. He said this would come up in the agenda again because it required a lot split. Mr. Scott said the agreement for joint usage of parking and driveway facilities should include snow removal and maintenance. Mr. Clark said he thought that was a good point. Mr. Drigans said that he hoped this agreement made it evident to the apartment residents that this parking lot was for overnight parking, and was not to be used for excess parking of recreational vehicles. Mr. Clark said it would have' to be. restricted to motor vehicles that have every day use. j MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning commission receive the administrative staff report for a building permit request by Bergstedt Realty, for an office building to be located at 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. and recommend approval except that snow removal and maintenance be included in the agreement for joint usage of parking and driveway facilities. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1 . LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-06 , BY BERGSTEDT-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY: Split off Parcel 540 from Lot 7, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 153, to allow the const ruction of a commercial building, with joint parking for the adjacent apartment complex. The same being 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. Mr. Drigans said he thought this had been covered. pretty thoroughly in both the Appeals Commission minutes and the administrative staff report. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 205 1975 Page 5 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot Split, L.S. #75-06, by Bergstedt-Anderson Realty Company, to split off Parcel 540 from Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 1.53, to allow construction of an office building at 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. , with 811ared parking for the adjacent apartment complex. Mr. Harris asked the zoning on this property. Mr. Clark said it was zoned commercial . He said the apartment complex was zoned commercial. also and was built in 1964 before the zoning code was recodified and you could build apartment buildings in any zoning. UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 7, Block I, Riverview Heights, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 8150 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing closed. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the memorandum from Virgil Herrick, City Attorney on Special. Use Permit Applications for Billboards dated August 20, 1975. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the. motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris said 'the Public Hearings were all closed on Naegele's requests for a Special Use Permit, He thought they could all be opened at once. . MOTION by Scott, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearings on requests for Special Use Permits by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, SP #75-08, SP #75-09, SP #75-10, SP #75-11, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, SP #75-15, SP #75-16. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearings reopened at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, was present and said he would try to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have in considering the Special Use Permits for billboards. Mr. Kraig Lofquist representing Naegele, said the company thought they had done a good job for the community and would like to continue to do so. . Mr. Scott said that in the memorandum from Mr. Herrick (on page 2) , it stated that he believed that findings should be made in regard to each individual application and that if the Commission recommended denial of the application, it was imperative that this denial be based upon testimony or evidence received at the hearing and that findings be drawn accordingly. He asked Mr. Herrick if that meant a citizen would have to appear at the hearing to give such testimony or evidence? Mr. Herrick said no, he has assumed that there would be minutes taken at the Public Hearing and he was aware that staff had made certain information available to the Planning Commission as to the statistics on the various billboards in the City. He said that any information given to the Planning Commission by the administrative staff or the sign companies would become a matter of record in the minutes , and this would be considered testimony or evidence. He said the Planning Commission should base their findings on this evidence or testimony. Mr. Scott said there was a tone of consistancy in this memorandum in that there e REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 5 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1975: CONSIDERATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1975: MINNESOTA TENANTS UNION: Mayor Nee called for a motion on the consideration and there was no response by the Council and Mayer Nee called the consideration dead for lack of a motion. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1975: A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE FEET SECTION 205.053, 46, TO ALLOW THE ENLARGEMENT OF A SINGLE CAR GARAGE INTO A DOUBLE CAR GARAGE TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK 1, BROOKVIEW TERRACE 2ND r ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 981 RICE CREEK TERRACE, FRIDLEY, it NNESOTA RE VEST BY ROBERT AND BARBARA HINRICHS : The Public Works Director pointed out that the Appeals Commission had recommended approval of the request. He explained the request to reduce the side yard setback from five feet to three feet to allow the construction of a single car garage. He pointed out the proposed construction on Page 4-L of the agenda book. He further explained that the petitioner had also requested vacation of the easement and the public hearing on this item was upcoming the following week. The City Manager questioned if it would be proper to take action on the request that evening when the vacation request had not been to hearing. The Public Works Director said he thought it would be in order to approve the variance request, but the vacation would still be pending. The City Manager said if the matter is tabled until the public hearing, the Council would be allowed to determine the approval or disapproval of the area property owners. Councilman Breider asked if any member of the Council had any objections to the current variance request and all of the members indicated there was no objection. hi0TI0N by Councilwoman Kukowski to table the matter of the variance request by Mr. Robert and Mrs. Barbara Hinrichs. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a ' voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM EIGHTY FEET TO j THIRTY FEET SECTI N 205.103, 4A, AND TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FRUM FIFTEEN FEET TO FIVE FEET SECTION 205.103, 46, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING TO BE L CATED ON PARCEL #540 PART OF LOT 7, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 153 THE SAME BEING 104052ND AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA RE UEST BY BERGSTEDT-ANDERSON REALTY, 5247 CENTRAL AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA I i The Public Works Director explained the requests as listed in the heading. He said the architect, Mr. Jacobson, was present to answer any of the Council's questions. The Public Works Director explained that the property to the east did not have adequate parking and said the current proposal would require 24 parking stalls. He said there is a recommended stipulation that they provide 46 stalls for the mutual use of the office and the apartment complex. He mentioned that the property was not split at the time that the apartment was developed. He also explained that the lot split had been registered by the County but not approved by the City Council. Mayor Nee recalled a request for a lot split on the property about two years ago that had been refused by the Council. He said this approval was not given because of the need for additional parking for the apartment complex. ` The City Manager asked if the proposal met the provisions of the Code. The Public Works Director said the construction met the requirements of the Cgde until the additional parking was suggested. Mayor Nee questioned the conditions of the lot split. He asked if it is or is it not split. The City Attorney said he could not tell until he could look at the County records to determine when the lot split took place and the ownership of the property changed. 'i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 6 Mayor Nee asked how short the apartment complex was in parking stalls. The Public Works Director said 43. He explained at the time the apartment was built the Code requirement for parking was 73 and at this time the requirement is 116. He said this is a difference of 43. He said if the Council approved the request with the r> stipulation of the additional parking, the office parking would back up the apart- ments with the 46 stalls. The City Manager said the office would be closed when most of the people in the apartment would like the additional parking. He said the businesses would only be open until 5:00 P.M.. He said with the joint parking lot, he felt this to be a good solution to a bad problem. Councilman Breider questioned what would be the case if the people from the apart- ment complex would want to park in the office complex during the day hours. The Public Works Director said the requirement of the office building would only be 24 stalls and this will leave many for the apartment parking. Councilman Breider made mention of a situation in the Commerce Park office building where there is an unemployment office and people park in the field and also in the street. He said the amount of space needed cannot be determined because it is an office. C uncilman Breider asked how this type of situation could be controlled. The City Manager said the stipulation for the cooperative parking would be filed on the records of the property and would be binding no matter who owns the property. E He said they would have to live with the agreement stipulations. The Public Works Director said a real estate firm and an engineering firm had been considering locating in the building. r The City Manager said Councilman Breider's point is well taken and he questioned if it would be possible to limit the use of the facility to a lesser traffic generator. The City Attorney advised the Council that he did not know how this could be done. Councilman Breider commented that he could see a constant hassle about who is parking in the lot. Mayor Nee asked if the Council could not split the lot and require the apartment to install more parking' in the area. The City Attorney said he did not know the City could require this. Mayor Nee said the apartment owner had enough land to provide good parking and he cut off a piece and sold it. �; 4 Councilman Fitzpatrick asked what assurance the City would have that some future owner could end the agreement. The City Attorney said the covenant could be written i that any succeeding owner would be liable for these conditions. He said this would 3 be on file with the register of deeds. Councilman Breider asked how the parking venture would be enforced. He questioned what would happen if the office building put up signs to allow parking for the office building and its patrons only and indicated that all others would be towed away and t the cars were towed away. He asked what the City would have the power to do in this instance. . The City Attorney said he was not sure how the agreement or covenant should read but it would be between the two property owners and the succeeding owners. He said r the agreement could say that a portion of the parking stalls would be mutually used, or more specifically what portion in number could be used. Councilman Breider said the people visiting the business would park inthe apartment lot and visa versa. He said the first person there would get the parking spot and everyone else would be out of luck. " r The City Manager said this could be done like a shopping center where all of the ' merchants and their employees share the lot. Mayor Nee said this condition would be controlled by one person, the owner of the I office building. The City Manager said this proposal was a reasonable solution to the problem. He said it is not the best solution but it is a solution. ='4 83 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTBMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 7 Councilman Starwalt questioned why anyone would want to buy the land and furnish the parkinq for another Property owner. Councilman Starwalt asked the Architect if he was aware of any problems in this provision. Mr. Jacobson said he was not aware of any problems. Councilman Starwalt asked g the parking. Mr. Jacobson said he if there was a problem with the owners sharin had talked to them at length and they are willing to have an attorney draw up the agreement. ` Mayor Nee said as long as there is going to be a building on this property, this proposal is better than what had been proposed in the past. He said there is a question of whether the applicant should be forced to put in the parking spaces needed by the apartment and not by his building alone. Mayor Nee said his problem with the proposal is that the property was split and sold and they did not come to the City to do it. The City Attorney said if the Council wanted to table the consideration, he could check the records at the County and determine what had been recorded as far as owners of the property and the lot split. He said if the lot split is valid this would allow the Council to make a decision. He also '!entioned the possibility of unrecorded interests. he Cit should obtain the concurrance of the two property Mayor Nee questioned if t y ►„ owners in regard to the parking agreement before making a final decision on the request. The City Attorney said the agreements would be between the two property owners but he felt the City should take a look at the agreements before issuing the s building permit. Mayor Nee instructed the applicant to see if the agreement could be worked out and +' Mr. Jacobson agreed to this. f MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to table the consideration of the request for a variance as requested by Bergstedt Anderson Realty for 1.040 52nd Avenue N. E. until the next meeting of the Council. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: TO ALLOW IML CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING BILLaOARD ON LOT 7, BLOCK I, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 214.042, THE SAME BEING 8150 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E.: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-09, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: TO ALLOW THE—�TINUATION FAN EXISTING BILLBOARD ON THE WESTERLY 500 FEET OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89, PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 214.042, THE SAME BEING 7201 HIGHWAY #65 N. E.: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-10, BY NAEGLELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING QILLBOARD BETWEEN LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 4, HYDE PARK_ADDITION, PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 214.042, THE-SAME BEING 6029 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E. : RE U[ST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-11 , BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATI N OF AN EXISTING BILLBOARD OtJ LOT 2, AUDITOR'S SUB^IVISIuti NO. 78,' PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE> SECTI N214.042, THE SAME BEING 51 INILK.)IATE G94: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-12, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: TO LL THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING BILLBOARD ON LOT 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. 78, PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 214.042, THE SAME BEING 93 INTERSTATE 694: The Public Works Director informed the Council that the petitioner had asked that the Council table all of the special use permits until the remainder of the requests are considered by the City Council. Mayor Nee asked if the Council members felt the requests should be handled with a public ' Attorney said he felt this would be appropriate ' level. The Cit- Atto y hearing at the Council S unless they would want to rely onthe information provided at the Planning Commission notice given to the property owners public hearings. Mayor Nee asked if there was concerning the requests and the Public Works Director said yes the people within 200 feet of the billboards had been notified. --_-- -. 84 F Y i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 8 Councilman Fitzpatrick said he thought the Council should note that the recommendations of the Planning Commission on these considerations are not unanimous as they usually are; the vote had been split. E Mayor Nee said he, would like to advise the people and provide publicity of the public hearings. The Public Works Director asked if the consideration should return to the Council to set the public hearing and Mayor Nee said yes. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to table the consideration of the special use permits for the previously listed locations. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. s RECEIVING THE CATV COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1975: i a MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to receive the minutes of the CATV Commission Special { Meeting of August 13, 1975. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, E 3 all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. t CONSIDERATION OF EXCHANGING CASH FOR SCRIPT - LIQUOR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - MCKESSION WINE AND SPIRITS COMPANY: The Finance Director explained that the City will receive 75% of the face value and interest for this period of time and save some bookkeeping expenses if the proposed action is approved. He pointed out the amount to be relatively small with value of $448 versus the face value of $598. @ Mayor Nee said he believed the proposal to be prudent and thoughtful. Councilman Breider said the action makes sense. MOTION by Councilman Breider to authorize the exchange of cash for script as recommended by the Finance Director. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. y; F RESOLUTION NO. 176-1975 - ORDERING PRELIMINARY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1976-1- The Public Works Director said this resolution related to the proposed streets for improvement the coming year and pointed out the list of those streets to be on Page 7 of the agenda book. Mayor Nee asked if the streets had been petitioned for and the Public Works Director said no they were part of the ten year improvement program. • Councilwoman Kukowski asked which year the City was currently in within the ten year 4 program and the Public Works Director said this would be the seventh. The City Manager said 85% of the streets in the City have been improved and are up to standard. Councilman Breider questioned if 57th had been brought through this process in the past. The Public Works Director said it had been but the maintenance costs on this street are quite high. Councilman Breider said the people can be brought in and it can be determined if the improvement would be any more favorable at this time. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to adopt Resolution No. 176-1975. Seconded by Council- man Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 177-1975 - AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SPLITTING OF SPECIAL ASSESS- MENTS ON PARCELS 1200 AND 1201 , SECTION 24, A�iD REFLATTING INTO GRACE HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION: • MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt Resolution No. 177-1975. Seconded by Councilwoman .Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried �1 Unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 178-1975 - DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE TREATMENT ANU REMOVAL OF TREES: Councilman STarwalt asked the value of the removal of the average claim. The Finance Director said he did not have the figures before him but the average range is from $100 to $150. r�. t�d``` ti �.. ,��:� p'" �1' '� ,. � � ..��. �,. �,�� 91, .w z . sew a 't+irf' ;. �, :�._ awe .� _ ��i,, �� � .. =---�,,,r.- �. .. , �