The URL can be used to link to this page

AF-V - 43721. - 1�A�2 91-aa CITY OF FRIDLEY • • 6431 U�NIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDI�Y, ZIId 55432 Qonqtiunity Develo�patient D�ent (612) 571-3450 . . • �• w� v• •; ��i' Pi�DP�ItTX IN�FO1�N41TI�1 - site plan required for sutanittals: see attached Address: �,�OoP� � /yJe�/17� L�. /i%� � a�i�on: L of � � �3/oc� 02 /�a.-�,� L� ,�� s �4��s ?.pt � S B1oc�c a2 Tract/Addition ��1 r�; s �R kc �s7�4 7�c s Cv�rent zoning: /�'"� Square footage/a�reage R,eason for variance ar�d hardship: .� °.s�a Son DDre 61 G��a�j �'d �_lsf� �� r! 0 f y`:71' n �1f ;/i e s.Sectioa� of City Oode: ii0�� ''Zl. � l�Yaf�� 2�� l�l � , � �.��.s�.�cr_�a.�'..2��SZ�:e� � ��_.�.�� ..,.� s �o�� o� FEE OiWi�R IIVFOR'f�TI�i /�r��/5 �n �i - i1 or i' 'f1 c �� ✓� c o� ��/�S 7`' a�ier �o "yv'ees /.� na�. �IOk.SC ��j�cnlcn f� Sit O �'1 a�1��0 7� �'hsl�O. •' (Cbntraet FU��hasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to prooessu�g) ��o n a../d F Ten r� ��e.r /�r-q s e. /��, �s /� 8/ �m e l o�` ��v N� �r� �/eY Mll� Ss�3 Z. �� 7/-!0� �9 � Siti�vi11�i1�J 4r��Y � �•��11��/��i�w� � � / � � - T ! NAME �4rnG -nr.S 4.�s✓�- ADDRESS I]AYTIN� PHONE SICTIAZURE OATE Fee: $100.00 $ 60.00 l/ for residential propPxties Fermit v�x # � { ' �.'1/ �ceipt # �/// 5" Application received by: ��i�p � Scheduled Appeals Coaranission date: Scheduled City Cauncil date: . : CITY OF FRIDLEY PL�N REVItw CHSC�LZBT Applicanta for vacations must submit the legal description of the parcel (easement, street, etc.) to be vacated. Complete site plans, siqned by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect, or other design professional, to include the following: A. General: 1. Name and address oP project 2. Legal description (certificata of survey may be requiredy 3. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, enqineer, and owner of record 4. Date proposed, north arrow, scale, number of sheets, name of drawer 5. Description of intehded use of site, buildings, and structures including type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load 6. Existinq zoninq and land use 7. Tabulation box indicatinq: (i) Size of parcel in sq. ft. (ii) Gross floor area of buildinqs (iii) Percent of site covered by building (iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface (v) Percent of site covered by qreen area (vi) Projected number of employees (vii) Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly (viii) Number of parkinq spaces required (ixj Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped (x) Heiqht of all buildings and structures and �umber of storfes B. Site Plan: 1. Property line dimensions, location of all exieting and proposed structures aith distance from boundaries, di�tance between atructures, building dimensions and floor elevations 2. Grading and drainaqe plan showinq existing natural Peatures (topography, wetlanda, vegetation, etc.) as well as proposed qrade elevations and aedimentation and storm aater retention ponds. Calculations for storm water detention/retention areas. 3. Ail exiatinq and proposed points of egrass/ingress Bhowinq widths of property lines, turning radii abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line, paving width, existing and proposed median cuts, and intersections of streets and driveways 4. Vehicular circulation system showinq location and dimensions for all driveways, parkinq spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, Pire lanes, emerqency access (if necessary), public and private etreets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, direction of traffic tlow, and traffic-control devices 5. Landscaping Plan 6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash enclosures 7. Location and screening detail of rooftop equipment S. Buildinq elevations from all directions 9. Utility plan identifying size and direction oE existing water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed building • r1�' u f � � . � � /C�S � C�,n�.�..�st� C.n . tMr M�wwin� �� f�/t��„ �i73 Mi�wr I�.tf'LE. t�nA S�r►w �y� i�il• T�sh �� 'j��♦"�" ��%�� %�� M�wM ssti' ! 4.i1 E u»�.� N� �9 T�lepl��e 7i�-�M• '��"""M'' eir`"'••'"* Sngineer• � 6urveyors "•„ �� •» . Mort�age Loan Survey forgRICKNER CONSTRUCTION CQ ��f��, / �?�i,r{ i� 1�l,�j � �l 0�- i� �� :� ;' ' � � ; � ,. � 1 �3� . _ _ ,, _ _ , . .,�.-�.. �p,,_... �Z � � � � r � � 11 � � ,r---------- ------- � -- = '. -QT 25. _ _ / . r� o . . fi ,, , I M �, ��. ry �, _ I 6 (�„� � �� e �� 0�' 20.� + ' �A R '� d � - ,_ � � �6 O / �1 S - / � 60.2 a !�L_�� — � �_/� / R'�o.o ~'� �lp� 1-a"� N. f, . ` � �,� / � � � N r' .-�.3� `h�• � r �'�J ,�' . �z,�,�,� �'--�! � � %�� , � ._ .� - �5 � �..OT BLOC i�;z �ARR1S �.�� S�ATES T�is �{ O f/Y• �wj t�If��f f'1 •!lRNii� �� 1Y�� w„�� N ty �! 9Ae dwndor,�s M M• lend �►ow Mac.�►�d �ml �/ 11N iKMi�w •f �11 Wiwiw�s� :f wwy� tAMHw� Mr �p ��si►b �wtvo�tbnMw�t� N awr� fr��w w ew •sid hw�. ihis w�wp 1� M�� wi� iw �Mn�cti�w wi�A � w�rfm� Iw ��„i M.wt �c�� ow N.� '►�re►�� nd wo I�o6il��y q��s�s�r �xMN N►1� h�1d�► •1 sntA �r�p�e �► �wr NINr iwM�i� •c��.re� ►y �i►� ►HS�n el �uew ww.��ey�. �t i� rw�►aNr1 �w1 a�•� �s ►rw� i�e NI I�. Mh w.rsr N�shWi�Aiwq 1�� Iw�es h Mowre�r MrMn. O�f� ►hif ��r �/ A.O. 1� ' i�l�URSAN tNGINEEliNG, INC. » � +��vr�7 a�►+�f�. � �Il r{/ �i�P►!S ; �w� %% �� ' � s � �� r j I V' ,I�y��' � \` � (XL 2 � �9 � � ��N �F FRlDLEY COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW F� nu�R � a►r� �E7'MdG DATE FILE DESCRIPTION vz� #91-aa 3s 7/29/91 8/20/91 16£31 Camelot Lane r� COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND RETURN TO PLANNING DEPT. ❑ BARB D. ICHELE M. - a-�t.�� MAR o �oHN F. COMMENTS ��-}-t-�-��,� �•. •�j v�ea.s�.fote. �s� v�- �:x �� '--� --� _ . �1° ��^ I b� c°P-h � i-o b �►(d. a.r d e-�a.c.�ed. (� � � . V�z,�'Q° ' G} � h o� -ia bo� Id a•� ackk�io�► • • -�owcwd ea��{- �w, �i,�e,� 1" `'c v�� w�Ai� � w�'�B�i-i— ..� I��ea�J- ��j � �0✓�ci. � i l �DARREL C. , C�'LEON M. � - � JIM H. S'- � CHUCK � a n�. ll� x�vc� �-lc� ti$x �'1 l�� !o � � � �� 05� I �� 2 � ' I , , . • �' �� - I , �' � � �, r I � � � ,I r �' � �� =�� I /�% � , . � � � �• 'I ► �I /� � �'� � ' , i " ' � � � . i%I� . �,. , , , � / / � � � / ,,, � � �/ � � � A ' �/ . // , , % ; � f" � �;� � / � • �, . �, / , � � /, i �i � � �� 1 �b.7%°� � PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION u ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of variance request, VAR #91-22, by Ronald and Jennifer Prasek: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch addition on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above stated time and place. DIANE SAVAGE CHAIRPERSON APPEALS COMMISSION Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. Rs�nald and Jennifer Prasek 1681 CaQnelot Lane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 City of Naa Brighton 803 - 5th Avenue N.W. New Brighton, M1V 55112 Andrew [niargo 1621 Rice Creek Road Fridley, NN 55432 David Skoe 1627 Ric�e Creek Road Fridley, MlV 55432 Andrew Kociscak 1419 West Danube l�ad Fridley, N�iT 55432 David Kubereh. 1& 80 Carr�lot Lane N. E. Fridley, NN 55432 Donavan Ols� 1670 Camelot Lane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Eldon Kaul 1660 Cam�lot Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 'Ihomas Turgeon 1650 Cam�elot Lane N.E. Fridley, N�V 55432 N.�ILING LIST • VAR #91-22 r 1681 C�OT LANE N.E. McGlore Orth. 1651 C�nelot_ Lane N. E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Leslie Johnson 1661 Camelot Lane N.E. F'ridley, NN 55432 Wi.11ia¢n Zbikawski 1671 CaQnelot Lane N.E. Fridley, NIl�T 55432 Alan Clair 1691 Camelot Lane N.E. Fridley, N�T 55432 Michael Me1tAn 1690 Ca¢nelot Lane N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Andrew Kociscak 1631 Rice Creek Road Fridley, MN 55432 Di:ane Savage 567 Rice Creek Terraoe N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Cit�r Manager City Council Nlailed: 8/9/91 � _ � � • � Community Development Department NG DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: September 5, 1991 �' •� . TO: William Burns, City Manager�, �� SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Variance, VAR #91-22, by Jennifer and Ronald Prasek; 1681 Camelot Lane N.E. Attached please find the above-referenced staff report. The requested variance is to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request, as the petitioners have alternatives which would allow them to meet code. MM/ dn M-91-649 0 i . � � � STAFF :REPORT APPEALS DATE A�ust 20, 1991 CITY�F PLANWNG COMMISSION DATE F�RIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE september 9, 1991 Au�HOR �"�`?/ls REQUE�T PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST �ocaTiorv �1TE DATA SI�E ` DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UTiLf�ES PARK DEDICATION r�n�a�vsi� FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONfORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONMVG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSiDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #91-22 Jennifer and Ronald Prasek 'I'o reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet 1681 Camelot Lane' 11,705 sq. ft.; 16,1a lot coverage 1�-1, Single Fam.ily Dwelling I�1, Single Family Dwelling, to W, E, & S; Harris Pond to the N Denial Approval with stipulation . 6.1 VAR ��91-22 • • Jennifer/Ronald Prasek �, T 30, � 24 r/DL EY �; i - r°O �t}) e» , �`i ...... J.w m ,a �i��. /d 1 ; `i («) '° �� • l•� � � }sL � � _ �.) /3 � 1 — , (' � 4n � �� ::i If: p(f<� /�/' g �4 / _ ��n ._.�» . E - -ROi ,, �,� �,,., '� ,,, rr, \;.., -�-- rn'I ', r) c� �, I _.;; ; � i =:. '� 16 ; 15 ' i i � � i � �i �,r., r�.v,,..- I c �i,�.,. � � I i AUO �' � �'�,�. �� 20 SUB. � '. � , ,Z • ,r • ;' � *� uJ n, Rr �z 3 Mi ;K WOODY LA. � W) � /Y) ;� 4 � 3:� �° i� � � � 43 iH15 IS A COMPIIAiION OF RECORDS AS THEY A�PEAR IN THE ANOKA COUNTY OFFICES AFfECTING THE AREA SHOWN. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USEG ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN- 7Y IS NOT RESFONSIBLE FCR ANY IN- ACCURAUES HEREW CJNiAMED. 539/3 41 Ul� uu �,� � �Q/3EH �r��. • • S�C�JNNEN ': � C. /J ...(, .�u f� ROIAND W. ANDERSON COUNiv SuRVEVC� �� ° , �-� 1NORd CWNfY, MMIMlSO�e /.�. � • s•2 LOCATION MAP � n � vo � � ir � �� f /4 i - -s , �r,� VAR ��91-22 � Jennifer/Ronald Prasek ,�,�6�,�' � ,� -. . -� I�I�tbt:vt � � - "" . , �p � �,r•� '~' . . . . - ..� � • . � �'�� - �; � � �� ... ,, �� '�1 ' • � � � ' w�'- � /�' .1�',1�1�� . �� G �Wws ■ r� �-� � �m . . . . .. . C�iiiA � � �] � Fa �:�0— Ofdi� ' • '(�Ti1�i•'ll�l�l' • � / - 1' � .��1C �� !��'� .� � . i ��`�` � ��• �� -:I �`� , ��. � ' p 0�,��a � _�i�� a� • ��.� .Si'�� _ ,� a -• � � � s•� 1. . A�0 � '� �' r I�' �� '� • �, . .� . � �� . -� � � �� : f �t� �' ''�� '� '�'��i l:�il �� d � � � �. •.., �e �i`� � _ _ ___ .� s.3 ZONING MAP �� i � Staff Report VAR #91-22, 1681 Camelot Lane Page 2 A. STATED HARDSHIP: � "3-season porch will not fit on lot with required allowance. However, lot map does not accurately reflect actual footage to shore of Harris pond, nor is the privacy of the lot, due to trees and house placement, shown on lot map." ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request The petitioners are requesting a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet. The request is for Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane. Site Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling Unit, as are the adjacent properties. Harris Pond is located to the north of the subject parcel. Analysis Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25� of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building. Public purpose served by this request is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. The petitioners are proposing to construct a three-season porch off the rear of the dwelling unit. An open deck is located in the area where the three-season porch is proposed to be built. While the subject lot is shorter than adjacent properties due to its location on a cul-de-sac, the design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther than the garage area. This results in the house being closer to the required rear yard setback. If the structure had been built such that the living area of the home was closer to or even with the garage, an additional 16 feet of rear yard would have been gained. 6.4 _ • ' � � Staff Report VAR #91-22, 1681 Camelot Lane Page 3 While the proposed three-season porch would have minimal impact on surrounding structures, the Appeals Commission should be aware that properties to the west have lot depths of 135 feet, and the homes are set closer to the front property line. More area exists on these lots to expand without a variance. The petitioners have several alternatives to the proposed variance request. The petitioners have reasonable use of the property without the three-season porch. They could construct a detached gazebo in the rear yard. If the petitioners needed additional living area, an addition could be constructed on the east side of the structure. Recommendation As the petitioners have reasonable use of the property and have other options which would allow them to meet Code, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the Commission recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Apppeals Commission Action The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this request to the City Council with one stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance as the petitioners have alternatives which would allow them to meet Code. 6.5 �..r .�.�,,,,, t..,d s..r..r,,.s j�il� T�s1�w� L��i I Ee�in��r iw0 M�wK1MI 6wO�M�r �� VAR ��91-22 • Jennifer/Ronald Prasek s«�„��, ��,�;,,��,�»�, .��. Engineero �c fiurveyors s��s M,�....r �►.. �s N � M�nw��*�/is M�nw. SS�Y i�I�pA�ne 7i1-�O11 �..e c.r. •i� Mortgage Loan Survey for gRICKNER CONSTRUCTION CQ rr-� o+� � -- �� -�� __ . � � _ __ .� �.� . 3 � - �i ` � /� t =..c.t�.,cC r` n � � � � � _� r"'N ).O � � /t/ :d� t:� i�i ------ �OT 25 ---/ f ,� - '�'sr � � ; � n , �% z i �,� h ° ( 6 � Co}�f : �� ' •- . iIQ.1 2� i ,I � �AR o � .,�- � .26 0 � 11 1- � � 60.2 ± �aL__ � �. ' s � '- 51,�5 R.� o v �� ►N � � N. E. j', pldd�'I10 � / N ��rf � ;, �.3 \h�, / ,. �I �. 1` ' . .f��'•�:� . i r3. % o-r25 L B�ocK� �-IARa,s L�KF ;�57A ��s Anc►�o ('�fy TF�� iti o �ru• e�i c�rr�ct r�Pr�wwti/:�n eI o srrv�r •� fA� 6��ndor��s oI t�• lond asow d�sc.�Nd �..r d d.� bc�ri�n •f •I1 Vu�lrin�s, �1 �wr, tMr��n� �n� 011 •�►i►N •.+cr��cAn»w��, H any� 1.�.� �. on ►o�d bw1 This svrwr h w��• �wlr iw [een�c�i�n wi1M • wwrlty• l�w n�w ►��nt �/ecs� on ►M 'r��Ny �nd wo I�ob�l��r r� ��r�w�d ea�c�P� »►M I�Idr •1 •vcA wN�tt��• M w.r H1��. �wtir��r •(qY�If� ♦y eiw r��s�n ol �rc6 n.�.yoq�. �r �� 6■6 SITE PLAN • � We, the undersigned, wi�h to make knowm to the Appeal� Commi��ion th�t we have no objections to the pr-opased three-season porch addition which Ronald and Jennifer Pra�ek wish to add ta their home at ib81 Camelot Lane in Fridley. Therefore, we recommend that the Appeals Commi�sion grant the variance which the Prasek� are req��esting. � , �. �' ; �. � � r ,lZ,��.� /�� i �",��L�:; �;� �� .-f, _�- ��2� C�°�� /c� � � c?�-�k.�..a-t .�,U � ��,�z��- �� %�� '` ,�,�x�J � �LP �� \��.�,-, �. ��,,� � � � � �� e� �- � �. L; , L ( C ��,% 17�; � ��'v{ « �,�:�� `�-- �-�� L' �-{�-- � - = � � �. _ ' , , , ,1 � ;�;�`��u- �.�-�' ' � C�" �?�2�" �� 7 � ��t�-� S ��v�;�,% f � �,��n��L,�- .'�...� �i�J �� / �/.%'�` 7 ,�� '.. � � _i �„/ / � � � � 4 ,`' / ;� '/� ' .�� /C � �i', � 1 � � ( ; �'�/� � , . . . G - � � � ��,� - 2�,> � L . ✓ l� J . �/ i ✓ ' � A � -� , � a /` � � r % � � b � �, 9 / � �� j � �;L�-�.,�: t bi Cy � �� _ . �_> � , � . _ . j`� - 1 , ��='�i �Y�(r�CL�v��j �1 _..�. ` �� -�?� ,t-c,1�� /� �/ � -:��.� ��C� � � �� :�.�... � .�� _�:. - 6.7 ; �� t �.r..,....� -�.�^,...�. ; ��,�� . ' � � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING� AOGIIST 20� 1991 CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kuechle called the August 20 1991, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Cat Smith, Carol Beaulieu Members Absent: Diane Savage, K�ii Vos Others Present: Michele McP rson, Planning Assist�nt : � Ronald & nnifer Prasek, 1681 Camelot Lane � � Wa�rren � ock, 289 �Lib�erty Street. N.E. � � � � ' Bert ler,•280 - 57th Ave. (Hardee's) Kat een Harvet, 271 - 57th Place Wi iam & Margie Talley, 281 - 57th Place bert Lunde, Theodore William Investments Scott Zbikowski, Theodore William Investments � MOTION by �t'r. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve ths August 6,/I991, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON 1. � VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RQECHI,E A� D THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY. Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch addition on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the end of Camelot Lane which is a cul-de-sac located near the New Brighton/Fridley border, just south of Harris Pond. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet in order to construct a three season porch off the rear of the dwelling. 6.9 � • APPEALS COMMIS3ION MEETING, AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 2 Currently, an open deck is located in the area where the proposed porch is to be built. Decks are allowed to encroach into the required setback areas. Ms. McPherson stated that while the subject lot is shorter in depth than adj acent properties due to its location on the cul-de-sac, the design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther than the garage area. If the home had been built such that the living area was closer to the front of the garage, an additional 16 feet of rear yard could have been gained at the time the home was built. The proposed three season porch will have minimal impact on surrounding properties as Harris Pond is to the north and there are no other homes located to the north. There are lots to the west that have lot depths of 135 feet, approximately 20-25 feet deeper than the subject lot. These homes are also set closer to the front property line as the right-of-way line is straighter. More area exists on adjacent lots to expand without a variance. �.Ms..McPherson��tated the petitioners do have several alternatives to the proposed variance request. The petitioners have reasonable use of the property without the three seasan porch. An alternative would be to construct a detached gazebo or, if the petitioners needed additional living area, an addition could be built on the east side of the dwelling unit. Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioners do have reasonable use of the property and have other options which would allow them to meet the Code, staff recommends the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the Commission recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Mr. Kuechle asked about the lot coverage with the proposed addition. Ms. McPherson stated that with the proposed addition, the lot coverage would be 18.3%. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M. Ms. Jennifer Prasek, 1681 Camelot Lane, stated she would like to make some comments about the staff report. She stated that at the bottom of page 2, staff stated: "While the subject lot is shorter 6.10 � • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 3 than adjacent properties due to its location on a cul-de-sac, the design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther than the garage area. This results in the house being closer to the required rear yard setback. If the structure had been built such that the living area of the home was closer to or even with the garage, an additional 16 feet of rear yard would have been gained. Ms. Prasek stated that paragraph suggests that they placed the house farther back than adjacent homes. As the Commission can see, there is living space behind the garage as well. The garage is placed on the lot in this particular position so that they could make the best use of the space, the front yard, space.on the north and east, and also to give the appropriate driveway space coming off the cul-de-sac. It would have been impossible with this particular house plan to have gained 16 feet in the rear. They chose this particular house plan for their family at the time they built, and the� .were: not made aware. by. .either the contractor or the .. City at� that •time� that t�ere would be� any groblem with this� particular plan on this lot. The house is also turned slightly to follow the line of the cul-de-sac. The living area of the house to the east matches their living space, and the garage to the east is on the right side of the house and comes out so it does line up in looking from the circle. Ms. Prasek referred to page 3 in the staff repart, first paragraph, which stated: "While the proposed three season porch would have minimal impact on surrounding properties, the Appeals Commission should be aware that properties to the west have lot depths of 135 feet, and the homes are set closer to the front property line. More area exists on these lots to expand without a variance." Ms. Prasek stated this is possibly the most important statement in the staff report which should have led to a recommendation of approval of the variance by staff, because the porch would have minimal impact on surrounding properties. The statement that the lots to the west are deeper and have more room for expansion without variances has no bearing on her request for a variance. Ms. Prasek stated the statement made by staff that they have reasonable use of the property without a three season porch also has no bearing on the current situation. It is their wish to add a three season porch, and they feel that would also constitute a reasonable use of the property. Staff also suggested several alternatives to their variance. A gazebo would be nice, but it not what they want. To suggest they place the porch on the east side would have a direct impact on the neighbors to the east. It would be in direct line of their view from their family room windows toward the northwest and Harris Pond. It would also interfere from the view of their backyard and would infringe on the spaces between the two homes. Having the porch on the back makes it very private and has a very minimal impact on the surrounding properties. 6.11 • • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGII3T 20, 1991 PAGE 4 Ms. Prasek stated there is 25 feet between their legal lot line and the actual shoreline of Harris Pond. There are trees on a large peninsula area which is City park property. There is a walking easement of approximately 10 feet all the way around Harris Park. The drainage and utility easement would involve another 15 feet to the lot line, but there is an additional approximately 20 feet that exists down to the pond. That same 20 feet is in place along the whole shoreline. All the lot plans leave this area in limbo. They are required by City Code to have 28 feet from the northernmost corner of the new addition to the lot line, and, in reality, it would be a little more than 40 feet to the shore of the pond. This is more than adequate. It doesn't make the lot look crowded. Ms. Prasek submitted a petition with the signatures from all the surrounding neighbors on Camelot Lane stating they have no obj ection to the proposed three season porch and recommend that the Appeals Commission grant the.variance. . � _ . Ms. Prasek stated that with all these issues in mind, she would request that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of this variance request. Ms. Smith asked if there has been any flooding in this area. Ms. Prasek stated that several years ago, during the super storm, Harris Pond filled up and flooded the park on Mississippi Street, overflowed into Mississippi Street and the adjacent intersection of Anoka Street/Mississippi Street. No water flowed onto the back of their property. The north end of Harris Lake is much lower than the south end. Ms. Beaulieu stated she would like the petitioner to address the hardship in a little more detail. Ms. Prasek stated the hardship is: (1) the fact that the porch in another location on the house would not be accessible from the house; (2) the fact that the porch on the back of the house would look more pleasing from all sides; (3) the fact that there is additional footage in back down to Harris Pond that they cannot legally claim, but was sodded and has been maintained by them for the 15 years they have lived here. Mr. Kuechle stated that before granting any variance request, the Appeals Commission must consider whether or not there is a true hardship. One of the criteria the Commission has to use in granting a variance request i� whether or not the petitioners have reasonable use of their property. For example, if there is something unique about a particular piece of property that the petitioner cannot use it and still conform with the requirement of the Zoning Code, then they have a strong case for a variance. That is the reason for the statement made by staff that: "The 6.12 � • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING.- AOGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 5 petitioners have reasonable use of the property without the three season porch." It is relevant to every variance request. Mr. Kuechle stated the petitioners have chosen to set their house farther back on the lot. That was their choice, and the City had no influence over that choice. If the house had been built forward, they would have had more rear yard space. The petitioners also chose the particular house plan to put the garage in front of the house, and had the house been at the 35 foot setback, there would be more rear yard space. He did not mean the variance should not be granted for that reason, but there are consequences in the plan the petitioners chose at the time they built their house. O ION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive into the record the petition signed by the neighbors on Camelot Lane stating they have no objection to the variance and the construction of the three sea�on porch at 1681 Camelot Lane. U�ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING�AYE, VIC£-CHA�RPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOUSLY. � MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CIiAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE POBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Ms. Smith stated that she would be inclined to recommend denial if there was a home to the rear of this property, but there is not. Harris Pond is to the rear of the property. She stated that putting an addition on the east side of the home would not be practical and would interfere with the neighbors on that side. Putting the porch on the rear of the house makes sense. She would recommend approval of the variance, because there are no neighbors behind the property. Ms. Beaulieu stated the petitioner stated the neighbor to the east has a view to the pond, and the neighbor would lose that view if the addition was constructed on the east. Since this addition would bring the lot coverage to 18.8%, the property owners could not put on another sizable addition without coming for another variance for lot coverage. She stated she would also recommend approval of the variance. Mr. Kuechle stated that the hardship is not particularly strong, but the impact to the neighbors also is not strong. In looking at the house from the north side, the addition will hardly be seen. There is still a lot of open space in the rear yard because of the pond. Because of the minimization of the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, he would also recommend approval. 6.13 � • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 6 MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-22, by Ronald and Jennifer Prasek, per Section 205.0'7.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch addition on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September 9, 1991. 2. GERRY STOCK• � Per Section.205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code, to inc ase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3� t allow the construction of an addition, on Lots 3 and 4, ock 11, Spring Brook Park, the same being 289 Liberty Str t Ai.E. Ms . McPherson stated the property is located on Lib y Street j ust east of Ruth Street. The property is zoned R- , Single Family Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is re esting a variance to increase the allowable lot coverage from 5� to 28.3o in order to construct a 20 ft. by 12 ft. addition o the rear of the property. Currently located in this area is a enced concrete patio. The petitioner is proposing that the ad tion be used for an additional bathroom and laundry room. Ms. McPherson stated the pet' ioner currently has a single family dwelling unit on the prope y as well as a three car garage for a total square footage of ,050 sq. ft. The lot is undersized at 8,640 sq. ft. The re red minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. The difference of maximu ot coverage between the two is approximately 90 sq, ft., so t impact which would allow the petitioner to construct an add' ion is relatively minimal. The petitioner does have adequate e of the property; however, the construction of the addition wo d have minimal impact on adjacent neighbors as it would meet he minimum setback requirements and would be located where th existing patio area is. Ms. Pherson stated that as the petitioner does have adequate use of the property, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission ecommend denial of the request to the City Council. 6.14 • • Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she believed they ould address the hardship as being the irregularity of the lot a the fact that the house is placed considerably back from Eas iver Road. She stated that if the petitioner reduced the sig o 3 feet by 3 feet and put it on the house, the sign would b illegible to people driving by at 45 m.p.h. Councilman Billings asked if the sig could be put on the garage. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated th the garage is set even further back than the house, and ther are some very large trees on the boulevard that shelter a por on of the garage. Mayor Nee stated that h drives by this area a lot, and he has never even noticed the ign. He stated that if the sign has been there for three year it is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. Seconded by Co cilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Mayor Nee, Councilwoman orgenson, Councilman Schneider, and Councilman Fitzpatric oting aye, Councilman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared e motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. 6. A. VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #91-22, BY JENNIFER AND RONALD PRASER. TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 28 FEET TO 18 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH ADDITION ON LOT 25. BLOCK 2, HARRIS LAKE ESTATES, THE SAME BEING 1681 CAMEIAT LANE N.E.: � Ms. Dacy stated that the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. She stated that the property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Camelot Lane just south of Harris Pond. She stated that the variance request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet to allow the construction of a three season porch. She stated that staff had recommended denial of the request; however, the Appeals Commission recommended approval with one stipulation: (1.) No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Ms. Dacy stated that the hardship addressed by the Appeals Commission was that this is a unique situation in that the property abuts Harris Pond to the rear; therefore, it would not overcrowd the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant variance request, VAR #91-22, with the following stipulation: (1) No construction shall occur � • FRIDLEY CITY COtJNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 10 within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Councilman Billings asked what hardship in Minnesota State Statutes is applicable to this piece of property that gives Council the authority to grant the variance. Councilman Schneider stated that the hardship is stated in staff's report on agenda page 6.4: "While the subject lot is shorter than adjacent properties due to its location on a cul-de-sac, the design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther than the garage area." He stated that the lot is unique also in that it abuts Harris Pond. Councilman Billings stated that as he understands Minnesota State Statutes, the hardship has to be something that is a unique quality of the lot, not something that the property owner has willfully done in order to create a situation that is different from others. He stated that he would request an opinion from the Citg Attorney as to whether or not granting this variance would meet the intent of Minnesota State Statues. Mr. Herrick stated that Councilman Billings correctly paraphrased the statute. He stated that there has to be something unique about the property and that the property owner did not create the problem. He stated that that is the law. He stated that Council are the judges as to whether this situation meets that requirement of the law. He questioned if the situation as described in the agenda and illustrated on the map is a situation where there is a hardship created by the nature of the property and not by the property owner. -� - Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, and Fitzpatrick voting aye, Chairman Billings voting nay, declared the motion carried on a vote of 4 to 1. B. VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 91-23 BY WARREN AND GERRi INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT CO GE FROM TO 26 PERCENT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTIO OF AN ADDIT 3 AND 4 BLOCK 11 SPRING BROOK K HE SAME LIBERTY STREET N.E. Mayor Nee, Councilman Mayor Nee Ms. Dacy stated that the original ariance request was to increase the maximum allowable lot cover e from 25 percent to 28.3 percent. She stated that at the Appe s Commission meeting the petitioner presented a plan to constr t a 12 feet by 20 feet addition to the existing house. She stat that the Appeals Commission recommended denial of that request on a 2 to 1 vote, and the petitioner then reduced his request a 10 feet by 20 feet addition, reducing the lot coverage from .3 percent to 26 percent. � F - '�� ! 1 � � � �� STATE OF I�IINNESOTA COUNTY OF 6NOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of a variance, VAR �F'91-22 Ronald and Jennifer Prasek , Owner CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS v yARIANCE The above entitled matter catne before the City Council of the City of Fridley attd �as heard on the 9th day of Sentember , 19 91 , on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridleyts Zoning Ordinattce, for the following described property: To reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow the construction of a three season porch addition on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane N.E. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be grauted as upon the follofring conditions or reasons: One stipulation. See City Council meeting minutes of September 9, 1991. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOgA CITY OF FRIDLEY ) ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Shirley A. Haapala, City Clerk for the City of Fridley With and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance With the original record thereof preserved in iqy office, and have found the same to be a eorrect and true transcript of the Wbole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subseribed my hand at the City of Frid ey, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the L�`� day of , 19�• DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, 1rIl�T 55�32 _��'s2�� , C ,,�.��,.� � � i ` 1 SHIRLEY A. APALA, CI CLE� �1 >�+.',' ,,;' � o�,�„a�. c, ._ , ' � oD � ♦ q r Varianees are valid for a period of one year following approval :aAd�.�sball�,.� b� ��°,,4�;.��,r eonsidered void if not used Within that period. � ,ti �9 ,; x - „F ; . ; �, , s f-:� ,,. o �.°� ' ,- a . 5 � � p 1.�i . , � � � _ ,! \. � • : 4+` � .. Cp 11T YdYll�d .s, �,� — �� f � e � q q ��f �[ ' '1 . r! •ve ^�� ... . .� � � �� E � � �, e � 4 � ` t. �..�.� ,:.. . ., t . � y � � C � ( FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 9 1 � Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she believed they could address the hardship as being the irregularity of the lot and the fact that the house is placed considerably back from East River Road. She stated that if the petitioner reduced the sign to 3 feet by 3 feet and put it on the house, the sign would be illegible to people driving by at 45 m.p.h. Councilman Billings asked if the sign could be put on the garage. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the garage is set even further back than the house, and there are some very large trees on the boulevard that shelter a portion of the garage. Mayor Nee stated that he drives by this area a lot, and he has never even noticed the sign. Iie stated that if the sign has been there �ar three years it is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, and Councilman Fitzpatrick voting aye, Councilman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. 6. A. RECEIVE ITEMS FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1991: ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH ADDITION ON LOT 25. BLOCK 2. HARRIS LAKE ESTATES. THE SAME BEING 1681 CAMELOT LANE N.E.: -� " Ms. Dacy stated that the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. She stated that the property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Camelot Lane just south of Harris Pond. She stated that the variance request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet to allow the construction of a three season porch. She stated that staff had recommended denial of the request; however, the Appeals Commission recommended approval with one stipulation: (1.) No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. Ms. Dacy stated that the hardship addressed by the Appeals Commission was that this is a unique situation in that the property abuts Harris Pond to the rear; therefore, it would not overcrowd the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant variance re e -, with the following stipulation: ; r � � Y' FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF BEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGB 10 Councilman Billings asked what hardship in Minnesota State Statutes is applicable to this piece of property that gives Council the authority to grant the variance. Councilman Schneider stated that the hardship is stated in staff's report on agenda page 6.4: "While the subject lot is shorter than adj acent properties due to its location on a cul-de-sac, the design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther than the garage area." He stated that the lot is unique also in that it abuts Harris Pond. Councilman Billings stated that as he understands Minnesota State Statutes, the hardship has to be something that is a unique quality of the lot, not something that the property owner has willfully done in order to create a situation that is different from others. He stated that he would request an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not granting this variance would meet the intent of Minnesota State Statues. Mr. Herrick stated that Councilman Billings correctly paraphrased the statute. He stated that there has to be something unique about the property and that the property owner did not create the problem. He stated that that is the law. He stated that Council are the judges as to whether this situation meets that requirement of the law. He questioned if the situation as described in the agenda and illustrated on the map is a situati.on where there is a hardship created by the nature of the property and not by the property owner. '� � Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, Mayor Nee, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, and Councilman Fitzpatrick voting aye, Chairman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried on a vote of 4 to 1. B. VARIANCE RE UEST, VAR #91-23, BY WARREN AND GERRY STOCK, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE FROM 25 PERCENT TO 26 PERCENT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 11, SPRING BROOK PARK, THE SAME BEING 289 LIBERTY STREET N.E. Ms. Dacy stated that the original variance request was to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 25 percent to 28.3 percent. She stated that at the Appeals Commission meeting the petitioner presented a plan to construct a 12 feet by 20 feet addition to the existing house. She stated that the Appeals Commission recommended denial of that request on a 2 to 1 vote, and the petitioner then reduced his request to a 10 feet by 20 feet addition, reducing the lot coverage from 28.3 percent to 26 percent. � C r � _ � _ UTYOF FRtDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE September 16, 1991 Ronald and Jennifer Prasek '! 5?? "! Came i �t L�r.A :�r . E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Prasek: On September 9, 1991, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #91-22, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch addition on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and utility easement located parallel to the north lot line. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. 'nce ely Barbara Dacy Community Development Director BD/ dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by September 30, 1991. _. r� . = 71.. rti.r L= � .�h.� � � �'�-�.7�-/C-�� ' Co��ur with action taken � 0 � � � c� � Tr � � 0 -,, s � � 0 r•�� m • � � L�E C7 CJ u ��3 Numerioal Graata� Grantee Reoarded Checked Murgin 1Y. Indeac �FF10E OF i0u1tTY HECORDtn 3TATE Of MNINE80TA. tbUNTY Of ANOKA i hereby certlty that tlie wNMn �stN- ment w� in This offk� fa record fln the �A� � � �i�� `�e'dac�c Q�l.. and was d�dy roccrded da c � Oow Aerorrr � � � City of Fridley 6431 University Ave NE Eridley Mn 55432 Community Development