The URL can be used to link to this page

AF-V - 47027��. ; SUIiJtCf � ,� �;�ty' <)�' �''ritfllt'y �a , . �� AT 1HE TUP Uf 1"HE TNlINS �� ;,�, APP�ICATION TO BOARD OF A i � �• � CC��AMUN.ITY OEVfiI.OF'MLNT DIV. ` � • � l'��^'�..«� . r � � �tioTrci�vE ►r,sF�r-.cTi��N sec. � _ � ` � r--'1 : CITY HALI. FRIOLEY � SS432 NW.�HEH - R[V. DATE PAGE OF 71PVNOVEU BY � ..._..1�'� �•� G12-55b-3a50 • ' 910-F'23 1 3/21/75 1 2 £i00 ��e 1�ddress I 3� "^ ° �QrQ Phone FL�,�.�. i 5�0.��so �, rf � ��_ _ ��8 y �9'9 Legal t'No, Bloc�. No, Tract or Addn. Description � �f ��► S' � I� � 51 Variance I:equest(s); including stated hardshi��s (attach plat or survey of properL•y showing building, variances, etc., where.applicable) � ��Lo � i i 1�}2 �� Uf� R t l�,� �c.�. � r wl ��. � %6 2� .9� -� Y� �i` b il" W q S ' 1� a Q Q `1 '�►� 1M e QS U f`1 V� q �� s�cl !� C Q 1'Y1eas��r e w� e n�i in�as j'►� ac� �� b►�►� C..� �' � no� i o"� __� i n Q_ . • Date rfeetinq Date F� fiece?pt t�;�.. S:.gnat.ur� • 9-�6 _ sJ �� o� � �9 �'' Comnents & Recommendations by • , the Board of Appeals _ � City Council Action and Date _ . � .._ - : ' � yuf��ecr . � I� �:aty t>f� ��t��z��y � . '. �� • I1PPLI C�1�T IO�� TO B0�(ZD OF APPE�LS � AT THFi 70Y OF 7NF. 1N/IN5 r � �' COMMUNI7Y DFVELUPMENT UiV. �StFlll Re��ort) ' 4 � .. r � ^� Pfi01[CTIVE INSPGCTION SEC. � 1 . � . , � t r---� .� C�TY HAI.I fHiDLEY 554�2 �+uti'FiE.N nev, t,are i�n�e, uF r,NN�+ovtu.br �-----�: �.i 6�2-��c�.saso 910�F'23 1 3/21/?5 2 2 E300 : �Staff CoinmenL-s , � Board members notified of ineeting by ,o�", • . List m�mbers, date no�.ified, and "Yes" or "No"�for plans to attend hearing, Plan � '. Date To Attend � „ . Name ' � . � � �� '� "? J Q� . . . , ��-�v ��►-r:,�� _ � . . . l� " . . - � Pears making appeal and th following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: - • By Whom . Name • ` Date Phone or Mail Notified . , . T Q-�� S 11'��, /h� • � . , � ' . � � . - i .. . . . . _ .�,�!„f .-"" OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION 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 th� City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 16, 1975 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 28.8 feet to allow the completion of a dwelling and garage (foundation in only) located on Lot 20, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1631 Camelot Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. Elmer Israelson Jr., 8957 Pierce.Street>iN_.E., Mpls., Minnesota.) Anyone who desires to be hea�d with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM A. DRIGANS CHAIRMAN APPEALS COMMISSION 09/16/1975 � The Minutes of L-he Apneals Commission Meetinq of September 16, 19 4. A UEST FOR A VARIANCE OF S�CTION 205.053, 4A, FRIDLEY Y CODE, TO REDUCE THE IRED E"RONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 F�ET ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING AND GARAG� TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 7 THE SAME BEING 1420 KERRY CIRCLE N.E., FRIL O'BANNON BUILDERS, 5298 FILd�IORE STREET N� BL 1, HEATHER HILLS 2ND ADDITION , MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MIKE FRIDLEY, MINN�SOTA 55421.) Mr. Mattson explained that Mr. O' nnon was out of town and could not appear � before the Appeals Commission explain this request. He said he was under the impression that Mr. O' non was not in too much of a hurry to get this variance approved, and ' ce the staff still had a few questions to ask of Mr. O'Bannon, he thought e Board should table this until the next meeting. This item will� continued until the September 30, 1975 meeting. �5. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 28.8 FEET TO ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF �,��,,i A DWELLING AND GARAGE (FOUNDATION IN ONLY) LOCATED ON LOT 20, BLOCK 2, HARRIS LAKE ESTATES, THE SAME BEING 16�AMELOT T.ANF. N_E_� FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MR. ELMER ISRAELSON JR., 8957 PIERCE STREET N.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.) ~ Mr. Israelson was present to present his request. The verifying survey and a picture of the lot were shown to the Board. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Wahlberg, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays,�the motion carried. 0 Chairman Drigans asked who made the error in this case. Mr. Israelson said he is building his own home and he made the error. Mr. Israelson said there is a protective covenant on this lot that says the setback cannot be less then 25 feet and he thought that the covenant had pr_ecedence over the City Code so he measured off the 25 feet and added 3 more feet to make sure he would be within the 25 feet. . Mrs. Gabel said she didn't understand how a mistake like this could happen. She questioned why a builder doesn't have to follow the location on the survey that he submits with his request for a building permit. Mr. Mattson tried to explain that when the builder submits his plans and location survey for a new house, the Inspection Department goes over the plans and checks . the location of the house on the survey and if it agrees with the setback requirements the permit is issued. He said the builder draws on the survey where he wants to. locate the house and the location is approved if it meets the Code. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the applicant is given anything that states the minimum requirements. Mr. 'Mattson said requirements are listed on the permit but that the City has to rely - on the contractor's measurements out in the field. Mrs. Gabel asked why the covenant would say the minimum setback is 25 feet and why the developer would put that in a covenant when ke knows it doesn't agree with the City Codes. Mr. Mattson said a developer can put anything in a covenant for a development that he wants, but that the people who build in that development still have to follow the Ciiy Code. He said the covenant only binds the property owners together where property owners can take action against other property owners if they violate the covenant. He said the City has no jurisdiction over what�:a covenant says and the City cannot bring action against anybody who violates a covenant unless it also violates a City Code requirem�nt. The Minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of September 16, 1975 Page 7 Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Israelson what code was followed for building the house. Mr. Israelson said his cousin is a builder who did the actual planning of the house. Mr. Kemper noted, after looking at a building permit, that the permit does not actually list the minimum requirements. Mr. Mattson explained that the Inspection Department, when they receive a survey with a house located on it, assumes that that is where the person wants to build it as the person has drawn it on the survey himself shawing the distances from the lot lines. He said if it is located where it would violate any of the Codes� the Building Inspector will inform the person. (NOTE: Before a permit is issued, the applicant is asked to read the following before signing the permit, "I hereby certify that 2 have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction." Chairman Drigans asked if there are any houses built on the same side of thP street on this block. Mr. Israelson said his is the first house on this side and �dded that Mr. Harris, the developer, had stated he would have to plan houses with the garages possibly jutting out in front (L-shaped) for the rest of the houses to conform to the same setback. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if this would mean everybody would need a variance along this street. Mr. Mattson said this would not necessarily mean that they will need variances as the people may not want to be set t.hat close to the front. ' The Board felt that the waiting for the verifying survey to be checked out, to determine if the house is located correctly, is not the the best procedure to follow as it is then to late to have the contractor change anything. Mr. Mattson said a footing inspection is made on all construction before they are allowed to pour any concrete, but that it is pretty hard to determine exact distances without the use of a transit. He said this should be the responsibility of the contractor as the City cannot be in the field holding the contractor's hand on all the jobs to make sure they do the work right before they continue. Mr. Kemper said if the only way to determine if the distances are accurate is with a transit then that is what they should use, or maybe the City should have the State inspectors do the inspecting. Mrs. Wahlberg stated she felt there should be some listinq of the requirements to give people at the time they apply for a permit. Mr. Mattson said it just isn't that easy to get a permit. He said everything is checked out before a permit is issued, and he added that the requirements wouldn't give the contractor any help out in the field if he doesn't know where his lot lines are. Mrs. Wahlberg stated that it would inform the people of the minimum requirements. • Mr. Kemper said he would like to see the building permits be a little more informative. Mr. Mattson said that it gets down to where does the City's responsibility end, and added that the City Code is always available for people to look at and the staff is available to answer questions. Chairman Drigans asked why the people are paying a fee for inspections if they can't get the work really looked at. Mrs. Wahlberg added that if there was more caution taken at the time the building was laid out, the two variances tonight, on foundations being put in wrong, could have been eliminated. She said if the construction is okay at the foundation inspection, then the rest of it should all fall into place. Mr. Mattson stated that there are a great number of permits issued and the number o� errors not caught is very small. The Minutes o� the Appeals Co�nission Meeting of September T6, 1975 Page 8 ' Mr. Kemper said there is a difference between not following the proposed plan and ' not understanding the Codes. Chairman Drigans stated the applicant has stated on the variance application i:hat he measured from the curb instead of the lot line. Mr. Mattson stated it is hard to determine whether a distance is 28 feet or 35 feet out in the field without measuring. He added he felt the City staff are doing an excellent job. C� MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Wahlberg, to recommend approval of the variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 28.8 feet, the reason being that the house is already`there and this is just academic. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Chairman Drigans informed Mr. Israelson of the procedure that this request will go through. He stated that Mr. Israelson could appear before the Council on Monday (Sept. 22) during the visitor portion of the meeting and explain the circumstances of the request and also explain that the Appeals Commission h�d unanimously approved the request. Chairman Drigans also said that Mr. Israelson could voice his opinion on the procedure that had to be followed to get a variance acted on. � Mr. Israelson said he had hoped to be able to move in to his house on I3ovember 1, and a delay of 2- 3 weeks will not help him any. SIDE THE BUILDING O 500 - 73RD . 73RD AVENUE _N�1 , TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ON PART OF SECTION 11, T°30, R-?.4, ANOKA COUNTY, THE SAME BEII3G UE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. ., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. BY CARTER DAY COMPANY, 500 - Mr. Schmidt, repre enting Carter-Day Company, was present to present the request. MOTION by Wahlberg, se nded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being n nays, the motion carried. The plot plan for the s shown to the Board. Mr. Schmidt pointed out on the plo lan the existing building, the proposed addition and the parking area. He e ained they plan to install the required curbing on everything that is existing us on everything new, but they would 1ik� a variance on the section.of curbing at is along the existing parking lot that is along the south side of the stru ure. He explained there is a problem here is that the grass and the floor o the building are at the same elevation. He said if the curbing was installed would trap the water which in turn would go into the building. He said the al rnative to waiving the curbing would be to low�r the parking lot which would ve an astronomical cost. He added that when the original building permit was issu the ordinance on curbing did not exist. He said the Engineering Department d concurred that installing the curbing would not be a good situation. He sai to raise the grass would create more problems by being above the floor 1eve1. ,.�� -,. � Planninq Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 �a4e 14 ' Mrs. Wahlberg asked the size of the lots across the reet from this proposed plat. Mr. Bayer said they were 72' wide. Mrs. Wahlber asked Mr. Bayer if fze was able to construct homes on these lots according to t City Code and if he needed any variances. Mr, Bayer said he had no problems ilding homes on these lots. He had just sold two homes f'rom that plat for $42, each. , MOTION by Feterson, seconded by Langen ld, t�at the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of � roposed pZat, P.S. #75-03, Bayer's Lakeside 2nd Addition, by Rudy Bayer. Upon a vi ce vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed a 10:05 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, second by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the pr iminary pla�, P.S. #75-.03, Bayer's Lakeside 2nd Addition, by Rudy Bayer, being a repl of the West 162.24 feet as measured aZong the North and South lines of Lots 4 5 and 6,.B1ock 1, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, generally located betwe 75th and 76th Avenue N.E. on the East side of McKinley Street, witlz the fol.Zowing st'pu).ations: 1. Prosrid�5' drainage and utility easemeri� on the East boundary� of the North- outh property Zine of Lots 1-5. 2. P�ide a 10' drainage easement on the 5outh property line of Lot 5. a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carr.ied un:�nimously. �(�,,x 6. �A REQ[;EST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4A, FRIDLEY CITY COC1E, TO REDt10E THE R�"QUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FRQM 35 FEET TO 2$.8 FEET TO ALLOW THF� CJMPLE OF A DWELLING AND GaRAGE FOU(�DATION TN ONLY LOCATEQ OP� L_QT 20, BLOCK 2, HAR LAKE ESTAT�S, �HE SAME SEING 1031 CAMELOT LANE ��i.E. FRIDLEY,.�9I_NSdESQTA. REQ � � BY MR. ELMER ISRAELSON JR., 8957 PIERCE STREET N. ., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. ', . Mr. Elmer Israelson, Sr. was present. Mr. Isrealson said they were anxious to get the red tag off of this house so they could continue to work on it. z oF� � t�irs. Wahlberg said the problem with this pai°ticular request was that �ir. Israe7san bought a house in Harris Lake Estates and when he came into City Hall.to ap�ly for a pe��nit, he submitted plans that show�d that the house woul�d be placed 35' fram the front property iine, which is code. Ne was give�i a building permit, and .approval to canstruct the house. Before he put the -Footings in, he read his contract on this lot, and there was a protecti.ve covenant ti�rhich stated that you could build 25' back from the lot line. What this covenant said was that if you wanted to build closer to the lot iine than 25 feet and even if a var�ance was granted for less �iiar� 25', �his would be illeyal, and 25' was the minimum setback that would be allowed. Mr. Israelson misinterpreted this, and so he decided he would be generous and instead of building 25' back, he would build 28 feet back. When the building inspector made the fo�ting inspection, he did not catch that this house was only 28 feet from the front property line. Mr. Israelson thought he was acting in good faith, and he went ahead with the construction of this house. When he turned the verification s�.�rvey into the Inspection Department, it was noted what the actual setback �ras, and the house was red-tagged until a var�ance was approved. She said that at this t.ime, the entire exterior of the house was comp�e�ted, and Mr. Israelson was working on the interior of the house. She said Mr. Israelson would iike to move into this house by (�ovember lst. m 0 Planninq Commission Meetinq - Septemoer 24, 1975 Page 15 Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Israelson if his son had appeared before the City Council with this request on September 22, 1975. Mr. Israelson said his son was at this meeting, but he didn`t speak at this meeting. Mrs. Wahlberg said it was the Appeals Commission recommendation that to s�peed up the process, that the petitioner appear before Council during the visitor section of the meeting, and then come to this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Israelson said that one of the reasons they had moved the house forward on this lot was because they were advised to do so, because the deeper they went on the lot, the more fill. there was, so it was better to construct the house closer to the street, as this was higher ground. . Mrs. Wahlberg said it was the Appeals Commissions position that the City was negligent when the footing inspection was made, and should have caught the error on the setback of this house when the footing inspecion was made. She said that in defence of th^ City staff, she was told that wr�en footings were made it was a judgemental�decision, and this was the first house on this block, so there was no basis for comparison. � � Mr. Olson said that in defence of the inspection department, he said .that a construction site usually has mounds of dirt on the site, the inspector was-�there alone, so there was no way he could stretch a�tape and make an actual measurement. He thought the person who took out the permit had scme responsiblity to place the structure on the lot as it had been approved by the inspection department. He said the City required a verification survey as soon as the foundation was in, but they hadn't receiued the verification survey for th;s property until the house was almost co.mpl eted. Mrs. Wahlberg said that Mr. Israelson had sta�ed at the Appeals Commission meeting that he had talked to Mr. Harris, the developer of this property, about this problem. He said that Mr. Harris had sai.d that a possible solution to this problem as far as setbacks were concerned, was that th� houses on either side of this property could probably be L shaped hou.ses, so that part of the house would fit in with this setback and the rest of the house be 35' so that the other houses could be setback 35' to give some conformity to the entire street. Chairman Harr�s said that as a practical matter, there was no way this house could be moved 6 feet. There wouldn't be��anything to gain by denying this request. Mr. Peterson said he agreed with Mr. Harris, but he was disturbed that these people had been put through this inconvenience through no fault of their own, or any intent to defraud the City. He said he couldn't excuse the City staff in the same way, because they knew the rules and regulations, and they were the or�e"s responsi�le for the inspections. He said �the Plamm �g Commission�should do what it could to expidite this matte'r. He said this should serve as a warning to staft, that these inspections were not automatic, and that things should be checked on the site, because this was what they were supposed to be doing. He said he was upset at the lack of sensitivity shown on this request, and he thought it was a further inditement of City government when someone goes to a City Council meeting and was afraid to speak up. Mrs. Wahlberg said the fact that they didn't o^ecommendation from Council, made it difficult for up the process in any way, so the red tag �could be continued. speak up, and there had been no the Planning Commission to hurry removed and construction could be . � .-��a.—. ��' Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 16 • r Mr. Bergman said he couldn't agree with ever°ything that had been said. He thought the first error that had been made was when the petit�ioner did not constrU�t his home according to the plan submitted to the Inspecticn Department. N�said that was a gross error on their� part. He said the administration evidently did their part when they issued the permit on plans that met the City Code. Mrs, Wahlberg said that was true, but they still felt there was some negligence on the administration's part when the,footing inspection was made. Chairman Harris explained to Mr. Israelson that it would take Council action to remove the red tag. As they didn't ask for Council action on September 22, 1975 the only thing the Planning Commission could do would be to make a recommendation to the Council. Mrs. Wahlberg said it was really a moot point, because this would automatically be on the Council agenda for October 6th, so unless the Planning Corr�nission could come up with an alternate, they wouldn't have to dn anything. Mr. Israelson said that after Mr. Friday made his presentation to Council, his son said they didn't have to speak because the Council had already told Mr. FridaY ' to comE to this meeting. Mr. Israelson said he didn`t agree with this, and he was going to stand up and speak, and his son pulled him back down,.so he said•that any delay now was his son's fault. � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recemmend to Council that this varianc� be granted so the red tag can be removed to aZ1ow the continuation of construction of t12e home at Z631 Camelot Lane N.E. Upon a voice vo�P<�r all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld said that as the Israelson family would be at the Council meeting on October 6th, 1975, he would like to direct the Council to be sure and ask for them, so they could speak at this meeting. ALTERNATE METHODS FOR PROCCSSING VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Mr. man said there seemed to be a lot of confusion at the present time on the handling o ariances. Mrs. Wahlberg sa she would give some background on this. She said there was a time when the Appeals Com ' sion always had the final say on variances. It never went on to any other body. The Ci Council reviewed what the Commission did, but never took action. At some point, afte he fact, somone objected to that procedure, on the Council, so it was changed. It was stated that the Appeals Commission minutes should go through the Planning Commissio nd then to Council, so ther.e would be a review board. She said it was the Appeals iss�on intent to try and alleivate some of that, becau,se we felt there was some il ill because there was a six weefcs delay in certain cases. She said that Mr. Israelso nd Mr. Friday's requests really weren't relevant to this, but we f�lt in these two part lar cases, time was an important factor. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals recommendation vras that on re sts for vaCiances on�residential property only, the Appeals Commiss�ion be granted the p r to grant variances under the following conditions: 1. Where there is unanimous agreement of the Appe�ls Commission. 2. Where the staff concurs with the recommendation of the Appeals Cor�nissi�n. . . . ..,,� �° i ,� A RECEIVIIvu TIIE �41P�U'fES 01- 7fif PLANfVING COf1�41SSI0N h11_ET1PlG OF SEPTEM[3ER 2h, 1975 1. COi�ISIDER11T10P1 OF /1PPF/1LS COhi��11SS]ON ��IINUT�S 0(" SEPTEMaCR 6, 1975 A. KURT lMNUEACTllRING C0;•1PA�lY, 52II0 DiAIN STREET . The Public 4lorks Director explained thai this �•ras a request.for a v ' nce � for an increase from maximum lot coverage from 40� to Q7%, to al �� for the . construction of an addition to the exi�ting building. He said t should 6e noted that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of t request, with the understanding that, if possible, they would try to vro out addiLional . green area on the existing property. , Concern was�expressed by i:he Appeals Commission th there would be a reduction �� in the parking space. , � The Public t�orks Director explained that pr ently tfiey need 100 to 104 parking stalls. �They ti•rould have excess of what t y need. � 0 • Mr. Kuban, President of Kurt td�nufac rir�g Company�was �iresent and he said that there is room for 162 cars.. In th- nei�r adciition, it will be 125. Presently, there are 124 cars on the premis . This will depreciate because of smaller cars and people car-pooling with th. higher g:s prices. He said there is no problem going ir,to the Northeast are at all, as �ar.as the green is concerned. Co�mci',man Fii:zpatrick a.ed what would happen the nexi: time they had a' need ,for expansion, as theoreti lly, there was not enough room novr. .: Mr. Ku�an replied ey did not have any more room left for.further. expansion anc+ ; • that they ►�rould ve to go to another site if there ►vould be a.further need. � .----�`' • lie said they Y e only trying to solve the in�mediate.problem. .. •_ : i I :� . ` . ' , • i W �. i •, � MOTIdI� by uncilman Fitzpatrick to concur ��iith the Appeals Commission to approve request: r a variance, with the understanding that the Council arould prefer him io ret n as much as the green area as possible. Seconde� by Councilwoman Kuko ki. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried un imously. . . . � • � B. MR. W. FRIDAY. 66b0 tiICKQRY ST. td. E. �' �Action tivas,taken at previous Council Meeting of September 22; 1975 � • • ' � C. PiR. E. ISRAELSON, JR. 1631 CAh1ELOT LAPdE � - .The Public Wur{;s Director explained that ti�is was a request for a variance to reduee the required front yarcl setback from 35 feet to 2f3.£3 feet to allow .the � j completi�n of a d►��elling at 1631 Camelot Lane. • � � Reference r�as made thai: the reason for this request ��as the result of an error � made by,i:he Uuilder in measuring frnm the property line to proposed construction, i which reduced the front yard setback. The Flppeals Con�.roission recommended approval of this variance. . . . � • � Councilman Starwalt�said that he reviewed the site and�talked with the parties ; involved. He said that he came i:o the conclusion that t�he mistake ti,ras not irten- ' F tional and that it would not happen a�ain. Aiso, t�at constructiun had been � stopped until i:he matLer could be solveci. � �� . h10?ION b,y Co�mcilman Starwalt to concur with the Appeals Commission to approve � variance. Seconded by Councill,roman Y,ul:owski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, hlayor Nee declared the.motion carried unarrimously. . � Couneilman Starvralt l�roupht up the fact that he_kne�v of �nother state that charged � a penalty in the case ofVa mistake. Some mistakes are intentional and some are not. - He felt thaL if we would have a penalty thcre be a �r.ovision wl�ereby it'could be '� waived as in this case. ' - , , ,Councilman Fii:zpatrick said he thought this could be quite an impact on the rest of Lhe homes on the strect. � ' . Thc Publ�c IJorks Director said hc had ta',ked tirith a number�of peonle and the • developer ancl thcy thc�ughfi L��ey coulcl devclop a typc of hom� 1:hat would fit with . _ tl�e setback by extenclin� just ti�e garayc, as in an L-shaped Cype liome. __ �.. �r��tau�_nri cou.�c�i_ ��E ti�l ti�� o�� cr,�o�;t:r; e,� ��r� , , . , � � �.�. (�layoi° Idce poin�t.cd out i.li��t ��e sh��ul�l bc pre��i�,ed �Poi° possible vai°iances �11 alc7nc� i.l��is street. Ilc also saicl tl��i: he i��a� dis�,�,i�oiri.cd �-�1;cii Iic read in ` �� the C�n;m�iss?or�s i,�in�tit:es i;hat' ti�cy s,eem�d i;o i-hiiik tha1: tl�e.(:i�t�� was ne�l�i��eni; in nc�t. .r.hcci;ing i;hc`�,eit;��<:i:. Hcr sai!i t}�at. unless r�e are gainc� to ch��°qe a � pei�n�:�nent fec to s�mve;� 1:Iic� lot, he docs not I;no�� how they exriccL our [�uild�iny � Ti�s{+ecCoi°s �:o catch t.lii�: � , 1�1a��or Ptce said �re have a motion to concur �•rit;h the Pl�annin� Commissio,i, I�ut the quesi:icn is �1hat du rre do alxiut ii: the iie>:t. i:itne. � ;�l, 7he C�ii:1' 1"�u�ager said he tliou�l�i: ti�ere ti��er^ code provisions for penaltics, ' and he �•,oulcl lik�� to cl�eck into tl�at and coric back to the Council and see .� r;t�ai: r;e coulc! dc�. Q. Cfs!t;fLR D�Y COi�I�'f;(�1',--!�00 7:RD;i�,1�L.� e Public l�!ork� �ir�cclor e>:p1a�ineci i:iiat i:l�e Car'i:e�° Da;,� Comi3ar�y h1u �reviou5ly ap �oached tl�e Cit�� ioi, an office buil�J�ii�q, nrc�se»tly er.isi:ing �zE�prcix�iniai:cl,y at. 'r. � ioc��l.�ion oi 50� l3rd. l;vc. ��ncl fielody Dr'ive, t•�itl� the si;i�:�ulaiion at: t.hat t:' ne, fo7, t.i�c: insi:allatic>>� c;f a f�ou�•ed concrete cui�binc}. �i: this 1:i;l�e t.he,y i�c� d like to r,�a.ive � portion of tf�is cut�bir�g i:l��ai: is along �,:hc Sout:i� s�ide, lie said af r haviric� con��c�rsa�:ions ��rii:h Carter Day Compar�y, it appears. �herc� iverc �:n•o!�le,� +v�ith tlie s��h-cont�°actors. 7he C�lrtcr Uay Compan,y said i.i�e,y �:�ould inrt:all Lli^ r qu�ircci cu��i�i�ig o�i .evei°ythiric i;l�at is e�isting ;�lus everyi:!-�inq t;;�at is nc:r, but �ti�� t;ould lil:e a�,�tar�iance or� t.lie section of curbing i;hat is along ti�e ex�i sti n� parki ng 1 ot ti�at i s al o�i� t.he soui:4� s i cfe o�� i:t�e sl:ructure. ` The �i��c�hle;r: if i:i�a the e��°a.ss ancl i:he fiy°st 'floo�, elevation of thc bu�ild�ing are � at the same elc�val:ior Tf the curbinq ��;ere ii�si�lled it i•rould tra�� `rrai:e�° ►��hici� �in tur,n t,�oul d go �i nto th;: ��i�i l d�i n�. The City �;ai�age�° �,.,i:ed ��h i: ti•:ocild �ie hei;�veen i:l,e cirive��:ay and the b�iilding. Tf�e P;��1 i c i�iorks U irc�ct.c•r -i d �I�ere ��oul d be yrass �he►,e, Uui he d�d no�t f:no:�r abo«t. trees or shrubLery. . ' Ttie City I�anager asl:ed ��rhat th dimerisions rre-.�°e 711 this ai°e. . t ,A' ' � � ��The I'i�blic l�lorks Diri�ci:oi° saic.i he �rould guess about 8 to 10 feet. He said�there �• is a ci�°ive�,�:��y en�r��nce co thc p,��i: �g 1ot.a�ic( cat�s t�ril i noi: be pati°I:ing �ap adjacer�� to ti�e I�ui;ding on the snuth side. � � •. h10TT0I� b�� Ceu;�ciln�an L'reicler, seconded Cauncilti-tcman Kul:o,vsk�� to approve the �%ari�uice tc> vraive i:he inst.allation of cu inc� along existina parki�ig 1ot. that is alon� the south side ol- the structui°e. pon a voice vote, all ��otinc� aye, Mayoi� f�ee decl�red ti�e I11G�:1011 carried unani.e usly, „ •: 2. 1�II..TP;I � 1iILThdSIUS; 7355 Nldl'. �`65 .. � ' -- --- �-- ---- ,_-- _..._- ..------- _ .__ --. SPECI(1l. US�� 1?EI:I.!1T, S!' i!75-G�{ Tl�e Public 4brl;s Dii�ecfo�, explaineci that tliis t•�as a r �icsi: to allrnr the expansi�n of a hlof>ile Ilome S�les Lot., to ii�clu�ic .?11 of 1_nt 3, f3i cl: 1, Centr�,l 1'ieti.r r.ianor- and 2nd /�dd�ition. /lt the {'lanninc7 C0111:1175S-IOn hicei:�iny ot' �e��t:en;ber �, they reconm�encSed Coi�ncil to approve i.his req�.icst {�or a Sp�cial se Permi�t.. \ �1�1r. Clu-ist.ian�en eras preseni. to i•e��resent �the {�etitiancr, \ Couiicilman St�rwalt: as};ed P1r. Chi�istians��i ��aliat type of fencing the,y plar. i:o install. . 1�1i�. Ch�•isi:iansen ex��lained ti��t tiiis is onc of the i�hirigs tl�ey i,�is �d to t,all: abo«t:, ilicy t�ani:ed t.o 1;no�� ri��t type of fenc�ir��t �,da�s r�qu�ired t.o mect 1.he fe inct sti�,ula- tic>n. Ile said t:lu;,y �•rould prefer to pi�t up�.� cl�ain 1 inh fei�cc l>ecause ti�e main- �ten.�ncc. Ile saici il�at. thr.re wc�s soii,e corcer�� b:,� i.i�e {�et.iLioner of puLti q ail ofi thr. fcnce up�at c�i�e Liu�e. Tl�cy� �1r,uld 1�il:e permi��it,n t:c�"pu� th� fence u�, 'ust wliere it aUuts i.hc rc�iclenCial propert;� im!;icciiatciy �ind compl��te the fence 1; a latcr date. •� . . ... C��mc:ilm,�n Stari��1i: comr.ient:eci i:liai: hi� 5�r<<fr,��•rncc rrorld ��iso IT� a ch,�in 'link � ' ienc•c ��s it: ��oulcl cl9sco�n�ac�c cl�ilcfi°en f'rc�m (:�1111I)111fJ ��n it:. Il� als�� ask��d if t:hcr�e �detc� ��tly otJ�er �i tcin, tn be� d iscus, .et! ��l. t.isis i�if�i��„ �'