The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR03-04I CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 572-3592 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: �� Residential Commercial/industrial � PROPERTY 1NFORMATION: (site plan required for submittal, see attached) '��Address: �� i � �,- v�; ,� -� p.l F Property Identification Number: _ I Legal Description: Lot/`- -'' � Block � TracUAddition Current Zoning: Reason for Variance: Square Foc ,� C�,Vc r�ti�,. r c/ � �c� Have you operated ��usiness in a city which required a business license? Yes No �_ If Yes, which City? If Yes, what type of business? _ `r`t'aa [ili�i ii�eii5� avL�- v�cii&u Of T2YC:n@u'� i�5 ivv __._, FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) {Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this forrn prior to processing.) NAME: � 1,�� :'�G ��h b��\; �I c. ADDRESS: '`� c P�� `.'>�i Nf rr�di-� �1•� DAYTIME PHONE: ��b 3 % �a - K7G ( SIGNATU EIDATE: — - .� � NAME:�C �J-�+vrc� ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: Section of City Code: FEES Fee: S100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: , Fee: 560.00 for residential pro,pe�ties: Receipt #: /`-/ � Received By: Application Number: �� N I: 0� �� Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: '� � 1.1� �.3 Scheduled City Council Date: ' -�' 10 Day Application Complete Notification D te: �� ' � 60 Dav Date: �� _F- i�, 3t � 3 Signs c, . • • R /-/�-03 �L I�.r�o�h� 4v�'�ll{� �4u f��< e� 150 ��.:. I� 0.t�c��d ��.�n C.�VUr�ed ��rY�� . C�n -� hR u:eSF S:c+e c�(' tny 6tou3c. ��ee c1-��a�d�ec� C��,^; P. c'n_!e ��( �u-vey . T c��,.,Id ��I�� -!o� a�l1�c t.rd -f►ti2 tilu�'ih �:�Je, c�n� �� o�i-I� 5.de po��,zs _lo��! l.ei �c�� Q WIO�P lQ n: �'�� nl ��o k��J YnY �,oUS� , _T�;� ,s C°,��s:de_� ►�on- 1�v�61� 5p�.e�, � j1CLUt' Q�C�'i'� G'i S: �OVI�% S%D/�� CtL�c�7fid�/ �cv 1�1 � l2Jc�5.L a hci w�� ld l � V�z i� �; N, S� T� �c��e l�s c��nS l,l�;�� lti�c �io .je�•(, • \/a �' � C� nc� e c� � }�c��d � h� 1° lry�y f'ec..J�:.� ��' hc�r�+ sh�w �.�:��;�d �a�„-1 u�,kh �1� d:reCa:�,� c^,( my h:�u5� � See a-�i�_ted �C� •�'�ac<��. c`;4 S:{�'V2j� . �k C:��ne$5 �S I ��0�/4/ I �J� � � R'� C� ? ilC� C%� a deG� P/�c� J� , Ot ��Qi Q/1� (.� I�QG..� JT �/�X.. �Ol.[.`J-C J• T� Q r\ CC C o r n F-� �.c� � h "1 y� (� : a n i p( "i' k e 1'l o �� 5� ��_c r� �l� I� � v�'r a n� a•�i a b ol ��t C�� Cc h.\� � �^ /1 � i� 1/ o �t c.c7 "/`�' �IcY� dn:ve d��1 �+�o�d �-I o��e �o�lcf %;nIC �"h�� L�c_ C�dc��es5 i� �r�,�.�1 ��, i-� �B�• k5 �� i� fih�_ �-��,sc �:4� "t v�'ned [��n 13rc�.�c� S�. � w�.� �1c�a � k� �O Yo�r,�� P e_ ��rd 1�� -�Q� P w��+ t;iw t� q:ve my h,�«,�. ` rr�r2 0� ard t,�n, ��r� wl l�.e�,.� �ru w't 1,3�a�� `� � e� �d d�u 2� S � . 4�� dd: vz� � �orc� ��k9 � �ab� 1.�n��'l c�4 �� sc p,-,e -F�.� ��sd S��P :� �T� h��sc ;5 �e �„ i ��n� �'r'ona ��`ch �� y" oi,�� d lo' c�t �K �7�,�c h f!v er c�_ �( 1� �S �i �l `(� I o%�c '7' �"c,�;de � �t? � ti• i►�c_ � �� j3 ��k � w: l � Yie_.ec� ; `Tve� 12¢_�►�c� e �� a �ccs--� � y "7' y Ji • _ � CITYOF FRiDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UN[VERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55432 •(763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 January 21, 2003 Timothy Miller 591 Dover Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Dear Mr. Miller: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. Based on the City's application schedule, we officially received an application for a variance on January 10, 2003. This letter serves to inform you that your variance application is not complete and is being returned to you for completion. Upon full review of your application, it was determined that you are missing information considered necessary to act upon your request. A certificate of survey by a licensed surveyor was submitted, however the proposed construction isn't drawn to scale. Without this information it is difficult to clearly determine the dimension needed for a variance. It also appears that an additional variance will be needed to recognize your existing front yard setback non-conformity. I have also enclosed an additional development review schedule for the Appeals Commission, so you can re-submit a completed application and plan the meeting dates accordingly. The City will hold your application fee in anticipation of you submitting a complete variance application by the January 24, 2003 or February 7, 2003 deadline. If we have not received a completed application by that time, I will begin the refund process. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3595 ncerely,, � �'� ' � 1�+ �� Stacy t�Omberg Planner � C-03-10 [C�l� CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION Residents within 350 feet of 591 Dover Street NE VAR #03-04 I imothy Miller 591 Dover Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Petitioner or representative must be at meetin�c . PURPOSE: • To reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing nonconformity; • To reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of an open covered porch on the west side of the home LOCATION OF PROPERTY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: 591 Dover Street NE Lots 18-21, Block K, Riverview Heights Addition Appeals Commission Meeting, Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: _ 6431 University Avenue _ HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: i 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator, or Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION Hearing impaired persons interpreter or other person auxiliary aids should cont� no later than February 4, � ANYQUESTIONS: Contact Paul Bolin, Planni or Stacy Stromberg, Planr Mailing Date: January 31, 2003 planning to attend who need an > with disabilities who require ct Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 003. (TDD 763-572-3534) JOHNSON tVORMAN L& MAXINE M JOHNSON WILLARD J& DONNA K KELLER T P& VAN WAGNER SARA L 515 DOVER ST NE 560 FAIRMONT ST NE 625 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KOCZURJOHNJR 680 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LAGESSE GARLAND C JR & JANE 7951 BROAD AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MALONE MICHAEL J & KATHLEEN 635 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MELCHERT SCOT P& MARY H 627 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NASON CLARK A& MARJORIE M 614 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KOSTOHRYZ GERALD & PATRICIA 609 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LINDSTROM IRVIN W & HARRIET 540 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MALOY JOHN E 8051 BROAD AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MILLER TIMOTHY 591 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 OHOTTO ARTHUR A & JEANETTE 542 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PEABODY TROY & ANNA L�'}'J}� PETERSON JAMES T& LYNDA S 376 LABORE RD #107 p.y 7995 BROAD AVE NE LITTLE CANADA,MN 55117� FRIDLEY,MN 55432 REYNOLDS ERWIN B 530 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SCARCELLA STACEY D 8090 BROAD AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ROSSI DAVID A 620 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SHOGREN RANDY & MARY 524 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY.MN 55432 LAFAVE MICHAEL A& JUDITH A 640 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MAHADEO COMAL P & RAJWANTI 136 71 1l2 WAY NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MARTH DAWN M 641 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MOTYL GERALD LEE & SUSAN M 526 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PAINTER SCOTT D& SUSAN M 541 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PROKOP LEONA G 552 FAIRMONT ST NE FRIDLEY.MN 55432 RUTHERFORD ROBERT & NANCY 610 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY.MN 55432 SWARD DENISE A 631 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 WALETKO KEITH J WIGREN JOHN R& LORETTA M ZACHMAN GERALD R 537 ELY ST NE 567 ELY ST NE 5249 ODGREN AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ROGERS,MN 55374 i� f i � G!" J �~�l � ��v�� L �" ZEGLEN RICHARD S& PATRICIA ADELMAN STEVEN R BANNOCHIE GARY P& SALLY K 540 ELY ST NE 8080 BROAD AVE NE 665 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BERGLUND SCOTT & CHRISTINA A 563 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRUESCHJANELL 549 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CLARK CONSTANCE K 630 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 524 DOVER ST FRIDLEY,MN CURRENT RESIDENT 590 FAIRMONT ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 t � L �L� CURRENT RESIDENT.}� , 4 650 DOVER ST NE �' FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DICKSON SHARON L 600 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BOOTS GERALD R& CHRISTI A 615 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRUMBACK LANIER C& ALTO S L 640 FAIRMONT ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 COPELAND DONALD O & EVELYN 7981 BROAD AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 i�� i �ti L._ . CURRENT RESIDENT � �,i� 526 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 �1 CURRENT RESIDENT��°� 625 ELY ST NE N"N FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CURRE�RESIDENT Bad Addr s 1 FRIDLEY, 0 DRONEN RICHARD G & PEGGY 523 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY.MN 55432 HALDORSON VERN A& DIANNE HANSON DONALD L& JANICE C 514 DOVER ST NE 511 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HRA IN AN F'OR CITY OF FRIDLEY HUDYMA KIM B& KIMBERLY A 6431 UNIVE SITY AVE NE 641 CHERYL ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 5432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRECOUNT TIMOTHY J& CHERYL E 580 FAIRMONT ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CAROON LEO H & LUELLA 521 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 520 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY.MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 530 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 � ,� v,�- CURRENT RESIDENT ��µ.� 630 ELY ST NE U ��L FRIDLEY.MN 55432 DAHLBERG DOUGLAS C �,,y,"'�'p,�''r 651 ELY ST NE �'�- ��:J,�� FRIDLEY,MN 55432'�n,� y `}"' 1�' µ, ERICKSON WILLIAM E 650 ELY ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HERNANDEZ DOUGLES R & KATJA 8081 BROAD AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 JENSEN SCOTT A& SHARON M 531 DOVER ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 .� ,�� City of Fridley Variance Request #03-04 ,. ,.,,, _ __ ,, _ , , � , ,,- , � � ,_ \ � \ -��, , �,,, � `, �_ . , : `'_. ' � LEGEND _ � � , I Timothy Miller 591 Dover Street � � Sources: Fridiey Engineenng Ridley GIS Aneka County GIS Map Date: 1/29/03 City of Fridley Land Use Application SP #03-04 February 12, 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant Timothy Miller 591 Dover Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: Variances reducing the front yard setback. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 591 Dover Street S iZe: 14,850 sq. ft. .34 acres Existing Land Use: Single family home. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family 8 R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a front yard setback of 25 feet.' ' City Code requires that if the front yard setback of neighboring homes is greater than the minimum front yard setback, then the setback for the new structure can be six (6) feet more or less of the average depth of the adjacent structures. In no case shall it be less than the required front yard setback. Zoning History: 1922 — Lot is platted. 1949 — Home built pre-1949. 1963 — Detached garage built. 1991 — Dover Street vacated. 1998 — Building permit issued to construct a basement and add a foyer. 2002 — Special use permit and building permit issued to construct a second accessory structure. 2002 — Building permit issued to construct a second story to the home. Legal Description of Property: Lots 18 thru 21, Block K, Riverview Public Utilities: Home is co�nected. Transportation: Broad Avenue provides access to the residence. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban landscapinq. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The petitioner, Mr. Miller, is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback to recognize an existing non-conformity and a variance to construct an open covered porch on the west side of his home. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "My reason of hardship would start with the direction of my house. The address. 591 Dover Street, sits on the corner of Dover Street (vacated) and Broad Avenue. The front of fhe house was 6uilt facing Dover Sfreet and at the boftom o( a hill. The house looks like it would be addressed off 8road Avenue, even though (he house was built (acing Dover Street." - Timothy Miller SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of fhe (ront yard setback variance recognizing an existing non- conformity. • The variance is simply recognizing a pre- existing condition. • Approving this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future. City Sfaff recommends denial of the 6ont yard setback request to reduce the (ront yard setback to consfruct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house. No similar variances have been granted in the past. • An altemative does exist. There is no undue hardship. CITY COUNCII ACTIONI 60 DAY DATE City Council — February 24, 2003 60 Day — March 10, 2003 + �, , I ��'' ' �� j� � 4 1� �i I, E.� 1=1 y..,.'�•�.:�1 i ,, 48YHiYYY�_:� l . :'� _� �. ' . '� (Existing home) Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #03-04 REQUEST Petitioner, Timothy Miller, is seeking two variances that will allow for the reduction of the front yard setback at his residence at 591 Dover Street. The first variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The second variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an opened covered porch on the west side of his home. ANALYSIS The property is zoned R-1 Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The property is addressed off Dover Street; however, it receives access from Broad Avenue. Essentially this property is a corner lot, being situated on the corner of Dover Street, which was vacated in 1991, and Broad Avenue. The original home was constructed prior to 1949. When it was constructed, it was built facing Dover Street, meeting all setback requirements. When Dover Street was vacated in 1991, Broad Avenue became the code required front yard, because it's the property's only street frontage. With Broad Avenue becoming the front yard, it leaves a non-conforming front yard setback at 18.2 feet. The petitioner is seeking a variance to recognize this non-conforming setback. � �� = �' � --- � - ., f , --.. ;:�9c.-�,±`ei23. . ��`' .' * � Existing Home �1�1 �. : �'; �..-- •�. � � ;: �; u•.,� � ��?' -;•. , ... '�' -'�� _� >- The dimensions of the lot are 110 ft. by 135 ft. and iYs a rectangular shape. As stated above, the existing home was built prior to 1949, the existing garage was built in 1963, a building permit was issued in 1998 to construct a basement and to add a foyer to the home, a special use permit and building permit were issued in 2002 to allow for the construction of a second accessory structure, and also in 2002, a building permit was issued to allow for the construction of a second story to the home. CODE REQUIREMENTS City Code requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet; however, because one of the neighboring properties is set back at forty-five (45) feet and the other is set back at twenty-five (25) feet, the front yard setback averaging requirement needs to be considered. City Code requires that if the front yard setback of neighboring homes is greater than the minimum front yard setback, then the setback for the new structure can be six (6) feet more or less of the average front yard setback depth of the adjacent structures. In no case shall it be less than the required front yard setback. Based on the above code requirements, a front yard setback of 29 feet is determined. As stated above, the home/garage to the noRh is set back 25 feet from the front yard property line and the home directly to the south is set back 45 feet from the front yard property line. The average of these two setbacks is 35 feet. When you add/minus 6 feet, the front yard setback options for this home are between 29 feet and 41 feet. Front Yard Setback Variance — recoqnizinq an existinq non-conformity The petitioner is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. As was stated above, the vacation of Dover Street changed the code required front yard of this property to Broad Street, thus leaving a non-conforming front yard setback. This property also has unique conditions relating to the steep hill on the east side of the property, which may have helped determine the placement of the original home. Granting this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future as iYs simply recognizing an existing non-conformity. There was a similar variance granted in 2002 at 6452 Able Street, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.8 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. Front Yard Setback Variance — construction of open, covered porch The petitioner is also seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of his home. He would like to use this porch to connect his existing decks on the north and south sides of his home, which he believes would make for a more uniform look to his house. Staff has taken a look at the site and noted that there is another option that wouldn't require a variance. This alternative is that the petitioner could construct steps coming off the west sides of the north and south decks and then connect them with sidewalk. The sidewalk would allow for a connection to both of the decks without requiring a variance to reduce the front yard setback to 10 feet. 37 Frontyard setback Variance Hardship Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would case undue hardship because of conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship as defined by law is: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. 2. The need for the variance is due to the conditions unique to the property and not created by action of the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Ciry Staff has not been able to identify any hardship for the variance request for the construction of an open, covered porch on the west side of the petitioner's home. The hardship statement submitted by the petitioner shows that undue hardship does exist, when it comes to the placement of the existing house. However, the desire to construct a porch on the west side of the home that connects the decks on the north and south sides of the home is not a unique condition. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirement of the code. • Staff's research recognized that an alternative does exist. • Property can still be used as a single family home. There are already two decks connected to the home. : 2. The need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. � The property does have unique property conditions, however those conditions do not affect the petitioners ability to have 2 decks on the north and south sides of his home. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the front yard to provide front yard space to be used for green areas which enhance neighborhoods. The front yard setback is also required for aesthetic consideration to reduce the building "line of sighY' encroachment into the neighbor's front yard, which makes the homes less intrusive and prevents obstructing site lines. There are no other homes on this block that come close to encroaching this far into the front yard setback. City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP ' My reason of hardship would start with the direction of my house. The address, 591 Dover Street sits on fhe corner of Dover Street (vacated) and Broad Avenue. The front of the house was built facing Dover Street and at the bottom of a hill. The house looks like it would be addressed off Broad Avenue, even though the house was built facing Dover Sfreet. "-- also see attached hardship statement. Timothy Miller RECOMMENDATIONS City StaK recommends approval of the front yard setback variance recognizing an existing non-conformity. • The variance is simply recognizing a pre-existing condition. • Approving this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future. City Staff recommends denral of the front yard setback request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house. • No similar variances have been granted in the past. • An alternative does exist. • There is no undue hardship. 39 APPEALS COtiIMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARV 12, 2003 PAGE 5 The petitioner, Charles Segner, 63 1 Jefferson Street NE, stated that regarding the stipulation on removing the driveway, he would ike to have a few extra months for the removal, because he would like to build the garage first nd use that driveway to store building materials. Dr. Vos stated the petitioner is building a pretty good sized garage. The garage will be 24 ft. by 41 ft. , and the house is 24 ft. by 36 ft. e thinks it would work in the neighborhood because the neighbor's garage is set back as welL S the driveway along there won't look too bad. He would also be in favor of removing the ex ting concrete driveway. The petitioner's neighbor, Pat Hyde, 6311 efferson Street, stated the garage will be right next to her property. She has no problem with t t. They just wanted to make sure the old driveway is removed, and Mr. Segner has assured the that evould be done. She stated regarding the concem with the parking, their house has the ame long driveway on the other side with the setback and they do not have any problems w h parking. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CH MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE the public hearing. ERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE LIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M. MOTION by Mc Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to rec ive into the record a letter from Keith and Sandra Anderson dated February 1, 2003, stating th have no problem with the driveway location and garage structure. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approv variance, VAR #03-03, to reduce the side yard setback for living area from 10 feet to 6 feet to onvert the existing attached garage into living space on Lot 13, Block 5, Christie Addition, gen rally located at 6321 Jefferson Street NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit for the c nversion of the existing garage prior to obtaining a building permit for the constructio of the proposed garage. 2. The petitioner shall obtain authorization in writing fro the adjacent property owner before installation of a hard surface driveway on the no h side of this property. 3 4 5 6 7 The petitioner shall install Code required hard surface d veway within 12 months of issuance of a building permit. The existing driveway shall be removed, the curb restore and the yard resodded within 12 months of the issuance of a building permit. The proposed garage shall be architecturally compatible wi finished with complementary siding and color scheme. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as ap�, The garage shall not be used for a home occupation or living the existing home and by the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTE AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLEpECLARED THE MOTIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 3. PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #03-04 BY TIMOTHY MILLER: • Per Section 205.07.03.D(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity; and • Per Section 205.04.04.G of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the west side of the home, on Lots 18-24, Block K, Riverview Heights Addition, generally located at 591 Dover Street NE. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARV 12, 2003 PAGe 6 � , N10TION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:39 P.M. P,1s. Stromberg stated the petitioner is seeking cwo variances that will allow for the reduction of the front yard setback at his residence at 591 Dover Street. The first variance is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing nonconformity. The second variance is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the left side of his home. N1s. Strcmberg stated the petitioner s summary of hardship states: "My reason of hardship would start with the direction of my house. The address, 591 Dover Street, sits on the corner of Dover Street (vacated) and Broad Avenue. The front of the house was built facing Dover Street and at the bottom of a hill. The house looks like it would be addressed off Broad Avenue even though the house was built facing Dover Street." Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all surrounding properties. The property is addressed off Dover Street; however, it receives access from Broad Avenue. The original home was constructed prior to 1949. When it was constructed, it was built facing Dover Street, meeting all setback requirements. When Dover Street was vacated in 1991, Broad Avenue became the code-required front yard because it is the property's only street frontage. When Broad Avenue became the front yard, it left a non-conforming front yard setback at 18.2 feet. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variance to recognize this non- conforming setback. Ms. Stromberg stated the City Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet; but because one of the neighboring properties is set back at 45 feet and the other is set back at 25 feet, the front yard setback average requirement needs to be considered. The City Code requires that if the front yard setback of neighboring homes is greater than the minimum front yard setback, then the setback can be 6 feet more or less of the average setback of the adjacent structures. In no case shall it be less than the required front yard setback which is 25 feet. Based on that requirement, a front yard setback of 29 feet is determined. The home and garage to the north are set back 25 feet from the front yard property line, and the home to the south is set back 45 feet from the front yard property line. The average of these two setbacks is 35 feet. When you add or minus 6 feet, the front yard setback options for this home are 29 feet or 41 feet. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 182 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The vacation of Dover Street changed the code-required front yard of this property to Broad Avenue, thus leaving a non- conforming front yard setback. This property also has unique conditions relating to a steep hill on the east side of the property which may have helped determine the placement of the original home. Granting this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future as it is simply recognizing an existing non-conformity. P✓ts. Stromberg stated a similar variance was granted in 2002 at 6452 Able Street to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.8 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The petitioner is also seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open-covered porch on the west side of his house. He would like to use this porch to connect his existing deck from the north and south sides of his home which he believes would make for a more uniform look to his house. Staff has taken a look at the site and noted there is another option that wouldn't require a variance. The petitioner could construct steps coming off APPEALS COMMISSION tiIINUTES, FEBRUARV 12. 2403 PAGE 7 the west sides of the north and south decks and then connect with sidewalk. The sidewalk would allow for a connection to both of the decks without requiring a variance to reduce the front yard setback to 10 feet. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has not been able to identify any hardship as defined by law for the variance request for construction of an open covered porch on the west side of petitioner's home. The hardship statement submitted by the petitioner shows that undue hardship does exist when it comes to the placement of the existing house; however, the desire to construct a porch on the west side of the home that connects the decks on the north and south sides of the home is not a unique condition. Undue hardship as defined by the law is: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. Staff's research recognized that an alternative does exist and the property can still be used as a single-family home and there are already two decks connected to the house. 2. The need for the variance is due to a unique property condition. The property does have a unique property condition; however, those conditions do not affect the petitioner's ability to have two decks on the north and south sides of the home. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The Code requires the front yard to provide front yard space to be used for green areas which enhance neighborhoods. The front yard setback is also required for aesthetic consideration to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard which makes the home less intrusive and prevents obstructing site lines. There are no other homes on this block that come close to encroaching this far into the front yard setback. Mr. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance recognizing an existing non-conformity as this variance is simply recognizing a pre-existing condition and approving this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future. City staff recommends denial of the front yard setback request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house because no similar variances have been granted in the past, an alternative does exist, and there is no undue hardship. Mr. Kuechle asked if the rules would be any different if the petitioner was asking for an uncovered deck. Ms. Stromberg replied, no. Mr. Kuechle asked what are the rules about how high up the walkway can be. N1s. Stromberg replied the Code doesn't address how high the walkway can be. . Mr. Kuechle asked when does a sidewalk became a deck? Ms. Stromberg stated it becomes a deck as soon as it is elevated. Then it is a structure; it has to have posts, and it requires a building permit. APPEALS COtiIMISSION htINUTES, FEBRUAR� 12, 2003 PAGE 8 Dr. Vos inquired about the vacation of Dover Street since it never existed. Ms. Stromberg replied it was a street only on paper. The street never went through. Mr. Jones asked if the petitioner could put in just a walkway made out of decking block at ground level, not in the ground, but basically just sitting on top of the ground. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Mr. Jones asked if it could be covered? Nis. Stromberg replied, no. Mr. Jones asked what if it was not attached to the house? Ms. Stromberg replied that it is still in the front yard. The petitioner, Timothy Miller, 591 Dover Street NE, asked if there were any other streets vacated in Fridley where the front of the house was facing the street that was vacated. Streets like Ely, Cheryl, and Buffalo were supposed to go through at one time but never did and, like Dover, they were all on paper as streets. If any of those streets would be vacated, there would have been freGuent false side yards. His house is the only one that faced an actual street when it was built, so the street frontage is Dover Street. Since he has lived in the house, he has built a basement, lifted the house up, built a second story, and built a garage. He is looking for a more uniform look to the house to make it look more like a colonial-style house. The setback for the porch doesn't even have to be seven feet, just enough to make a roof on it and wrap a porch around the house to make it look more uniform and more toward Broad Street, rather than Dover Street. Dr. Vos stated there is not a lot of land between the curb and the house. He stated the house looks really nice. It is pretty obvious that this house makes the neighborhood look better. He is reluctant to have more stuff in the front yard, and he thought the back deck looked good. Mr. Miller stated that if he wanted to, he could run a wooden deck across the lawn. Mr. Kuechle, replied, yes, as long as it was on the ground. Ms. Stromberg stated she should probabiy check with the Building O�cial to make sure this is true. Mr. Miller stated that he is just looking for more of a uniform look to the house itself. If the house was set back on the lot, he would be able to do it. But, with it being on the corner lot, and Dover Street being vacated, it becomes a problem. Mc Kuechle stated he can understand how the petitioner would want to give the house a street front look. Mr. Miller stated that in considering other options to get the house to match, he was looking at more of a one or two foot overhang halfway down the house, connecting the two roof points from the front to the back, but without having to go through the variance process. Mr. Kuechle stated he did not think overhangs are a problem. APPEilS COMlv115SION MINUTcS. FEBRUARY 12. 2003 PAGE 9 Mr. Nliller stated he could then put in a couple of bow windows and dress it up a little bit from the street side without having to go through the variance process again. Mc Kuechle stated that a bow window might be a problem as it is extending the house. Mr. Jones asked if it matters since the bow window does not extend the foundation. Mr. Kuechle stated that it does. Mr. Miller stated the front yard is 17.5 right at the corner. Dr. Vos stated that Mr. Miller has 29 feet to 41 feet, and 29 t�et is the best ne has and that is the middle of his house. Ms. Stromberg stated she did not think an overhang would be a probiem, but they should check with the Building Official. Mr. Miller stated he is looking at options to try and give the house a Broad Street look. Mr. John Malloy, 8051 Broad Avenue, stated he lives directiy north of Mc Millers home. He has lived there 24 years, and Mr. Miller has done a great job with this house. It used to be a little two bedroom shack. He stated he has no objections to the variances. He got a 25 foot variance from his garage 24 years ago, 10 feet in front of his house, if it wasn't encroaching on the neighbors. He cannot see Mr. Miller's garage anyway. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:13 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he believed they need to make two motions on these two variance requests. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend approval of variance, VAR #03-04, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non- conformity on Lots 18-24, Block K, Riverview Heights, generally located at 591 Dover Street NE UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTE AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Dr. Vos stated if they vote to deny the second variance, it would still go to the City Council. Mr. Jones stated he can understand what Mr. Miller wants to do, and he appreciates the fact that the neighbor came forward stating he had no opposition to what Mr. Miller wants to do. However, he would be inclined to deny that portion of the variance and send it to the City Council. Mr. Kuechle agreed. He said Mr. Miller is trying to do a good job, and he can understand Mr. Nliller's concern about the street side appearance of the house, that it should look as if it faces Broad Avenue. However, he believed a variance request to 10 feet is too severe, and he cannot support it. MOTION by N1r. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend denial of variance, VAR #03-04, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. FEBRUARY 12, 2003 PAGE 10 � west side of the home, on Lots 18-24, Block K, Riverview Heights Addition, generally located at 591 Dover Street NE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTE AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. N1r. Kuechle stated this will go to the City Council on February 24. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Ms. Strom sta City Council. It ap the sign will not be that Home Valu withdrew its sign variance request before it went to the s they are going to just replace the face of the existing sign so the size of Mr. Stromberg stated the February 26� ting has been cancelled. Dr. Vos thanked the City for the Commissioners' dinne ' middle of the snowstorm. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE FEBRUARY 12, 2003, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:19 P.M. spectfully submitted, �y�,-:. ?�S -�L�. Denise M. Letendre �,� Recording Secretary CFR.T I F I CA'�`F �� z � � oi� �r,r.� �,��,_� ,_ _- �_ _ � I II[f7[H�( CU211f`�f III�1 IIIIS tiURVC'1. I'I.�IJ OH 171=1'0121 SCALP. IN I'[.l!I u�S PREPARHD L9Y MF ON UNUfli !d! DIHFCT SUPPHVISIOIJ ��D TIIA7 1 AM A DULY L I CENSfD I.�NU�SI RVEYOR UNOER �i+ �nus oF n+r: ST Of' MINN13S01�. P�i I NNESOTA L I C�1�� I�10 . I Ca I I � ' -6Z�1-�-= CoNTOUG�.1_lNL �',pNY0U2 1U`7C2VlaL �S 2Fb�� U��1cNMA2Y 1 �TOP t��Z" �1\'plLra�T �V�i. d5.�tap. iU�or�t> �.'�OVL� aENU1MP.RiLIC-.V�T\Oti}: $Z'�•�n� c�zY 0+= FR�DLE� bAT�ft�l. � \OOYi=AR �l.Of)O C=I.C.Vl�T10�.1.' Y.,i.3.1 �t�TLK.PO�A�- FQ F' ttin. !-�A� 1#2-lO�l"3 Q00��3 � [1� � � �-' W � � w � <I, � � O L� l� �� _ v\ � f .� l � � � � � �� OF SURVE� I<UIZTI-f SUIlVE_YING. INC. •iooa ��r-r�r�sor� s r. N. i:. � COWML3IA HEIC�H�I-S. I�II��1. 55n2i (fl2) 788-9769 �AX lGl1) 788-7602 I _ ` ! DAl C(� � 1__�� ' i- O= I ftON MOI�lUP,1EN I wPC-w000 rQivn.��r r�ti,c` ��,Fa (',I1A�N L1nl K F4NG% l..D OCC -C � . � ► I�) N ? �P W lA I � �w�O � � � � � � P i I� I i I ��;m" M � 1�', � I � � 1 ��I � I � � 1 �1 II ` � (�,r\ � �� tiz cz �' � c �\ l i1 1 � i � �` �� , � � I kE.i-n�v,�_.� wii��-� I � � 1�I•143'iV� 1��i I �� I� I - - � I I � � ..,J 1, � , . `(� ? , n z ' � z �,�� „ i-�-�.-- � � r. �� 1t"Pw[ BL3+ 4 b" �;,C R i3 n'S n ;! �. �'� lA 0 , �.3 C^� . SRR� � r" '_, c ' i :{ � � �A. �p� �J� , � ,r,t�, . � -- - -- � �� I� � I � I �� \�' \ c�Fa 1` �;� � �il�� I{,�� 111 1 I � � i i 1 ,` t �y, .-1 I �� + � � �(� � 1,��,�� ,„. ,—, ( '- _ � �a34�' � 1 �-�� \�� `J' 1 f / � 1 11 � ��, � ; t �� i `�1 t � 1 1 � �� Swoo � 1 ��1�`�\1 I ; �I �� 1 ��. ,\`\ � , , --\\1 ` ��\\`� `\�'� \� `� � ,1� I I`�--� . \ 1 � \ ` j-� o�Cic � ��\�`\ 1\\` � 1� O L/ , Z � , ��\ ��, , _ � — � � ,', ` `; �� ' , � -- ---- �i� ��, �, � � j= 1 � z� r� � �F,� - �� , , , , ,�� ►�1 �, o�13 � N� c, i� � ,,, �: � � _ � � � ,d. i � 1 � �� \� � 1 s-c F�ooiC I{ ,� I l 1 �� 1 ' $Z.(o.(o � 1 i'` t , \Z- � t� �_Z � 1 f 1 \ 1 1 � � � � �',�j 9 _—_ �{ � I 11 1l � 1\ ` �1 �/� `-- .rL3 ` N� � � j�F 'Q�� 1 1 �1) � � / � �"` ! 1 ` 1 � �\ I`i 1 � 3` j�'oo� il` � ��1��w -- - ' �-�: � � —�--� ` -�-- — �� 3x� fl��,�osE� � ` �t,.� 1 I , ��'� `� A �� ;� a Kx 30 1 �_� i,� � ir� ` `� ,' , �- �. -r-c: � J� � `, , , ,.: ., � c 1 ., I'�� _ r-�� _' 1 _O �-J' ,_ � , f ,J I' �` \ (•( 1� ; Gc�� 3 c� I f��o¢P�Y l:�.i 1 � (�c.s�,Mf^ I '�^� u��.1kK�a�/ �� i� ♦ L � 1-`, O T S �� l � � � N � � m � ��—_IJ� -_-__.. —T_' �1T ,1 �\ �. % y, 1� � l-�lz lS � 1 , i� �— C� L- 1` �� , �•, �� ! � � w �� \ c� >--� � 5 , � ��N o �� o v ti�c �; ., �'� � cv � � S O`� ��. �c� v �� Ci� � � � 1-� � �-�� i�o��C.��. �, Z-`=T � Q� l- l��T �� V I� L/�.� �. � � O �/ �._. tZ �� —C' � C CG `� • �, � _ -j p21C�.TbP� CERT I F I CA�'E �F �� o FOR'c,� �,�� r----�-_--� I IIERF.f3Y C[RTIFY TI-MT ThIIS SURVEY. PL�N�OR 17[POHf SCALE W PHFI NAS PREPAR[� BY ME OR UNUFR b1Y UIRECT SUPFRVISIOIJ AND TH�T I AM � DULY LICEPIS[D L�N��S 17VEYOR UNDFR � L�1lS OF THE ST - OF MINNFSOTA. R�VI�,� MINNESO-1A LIC� - N0, ICDI 1�� AN��t3��Z - -QRoQoSCCD DL�-K ' '_ 82'-�-,-= CONiTOU1� �INL. ��/ CONYOU2 1A.IYCQVliL 1S 2F00� 'l�i_NCHMAe.�'. �T O P NuT �l\" O � /i�T S�hl. d v I�p . 6F.o�.� ��OVL� �CENUiMPR� LLCV/1T� Oti� : SZ�� C1�Y 0�= FR�OL.E:' �7�.Ti,t�i 100 Y�n�Z FLOOO GLCVATIOU ; �2-3' � - > O � C3 SURVEY 11.\TLQPOLATI-..7 F`ZOhI.. FC.MIL t�l1a� H' ,Z70O1'�j n0 � r� 3 � Q � � I� � � w � � 0 d O l=�- � w� �<<l�z 1 r r s u�z vc �� rvc . i rvc . 9002 J[FF[RSON Sl. N.E. COLUML31 A I�IF I(3f-Il-S. IdfJ. 5542 � f612) 708-9769 fAX (612) "188-7602 I)Al F Y> I z- �(`l 1 o = i i�oi� ti�oriurn�rrr wc�r-=w000 t°rzivn.c�r �c_ti��` �LFn C,HA�N L�nl K- F4roG% � � k �P ?7 11� I � ��' I � � 0 ro�� lil I I �;��M I �; �� I� � I � } � i 1 I � ��►' 1 I � , � � a�z T�e � `�\ I(� (\ 1 I I � I � I IRETr��wr,�L w�� I 1 I vl•iV%'�v} 1�� { � ` I ----- �_ � � �� i il -- - ,1 i i � � , � � � «F ' / � ��3 � i� � � � 1 :,_ � ii � ` � I�S �� ► �� i v' , ; ��' ► � 4�� 1�, y � i, � � I � , ,,, ,l I �,}� � �`„.1� � .-, � , � 1 1, . ',� I � 1 � �(�3�' � IJ_�I 1 1 P; � _`, � '� �• � � � � ( � � � � � � �� ;� a \� `1��1 � , 1 �� `�Sw�° 1 � �� `1 \, �� 1 � � 1 \` `\� \\\�\\\ \ \\`� `, 1\ I1 S ' .� r� � c ic � cx• ; , ��- — �-- N.�� i �� _ �_ 111�� 1- ; '� 1 s'� G�ooS� 8� <o � Cc 3<1 7_3 x �c+\`_ , y- - r '3. �ca. . � . \t^P�u I 623r� �a. �� N` 8Z3n5 � r', ,;,4 a io � �.3i R�.ic �, s . .� — 1..� ; sd4: Lt _� ' Piue 8L3x4 \ � � � ,� r_ ,� _r�i=-= i'� .i f-A �� . r- �V '_ 1� i � i / / .. 1_ ____.__- � �\\ �l �� \ � � I \ � \ � \\ � `1 ` h � z s \ � \��\ �\ 1 \ \ �� o \ Ll "j,��,�`l � �� 11 � - 1� ----- - . . I�"� i � ;'; �i '� <i 'I �� C-� I I i � 1 L�11 l�. i �I 1 I �� \ � 7 \ � f'� � � � ` � 1 � `1 1 �1\ � �� 1 � i � i` ` � t \ � 24 9 � � I 1 `` 1� `\ � 1� j � 1 � �� \ 1 ��; / �I11 � 1 �� 1� d �� Do I � 3`� j1�, `r � I 1\ 11� �` �� ro `� �t; � � , �` 4\ \ 1 �� " � 1I c_I __� �` 1 U- 1\ �. �..i 'i.-��-� _J � �I1 _._ `J ��- - �I I 1` '• I 1\ `` \ 1\ `1� / / ` 1—� ,�] � � 1 1 � r/ � 1 N ,` � `1 1 N� . EO_.. ___�� __�._ '� � _ —_— Ri , 1 `. � `� S � � � � �-t_ �� 1 � , � � c� � 1� � � �� ! 1 �, v.l i� � \ C� 1-'� � 5 , �1 Y , �/ • � � ,�'t�� o �� --, v ��`c �, �� rv �.� � S O`c' /� \ O Ca �� -L.�� 1. \ � l � ��-L� NO�TlLC_�L ,, ? '� , �Q �1- 1-1- � C� � �� %� L /�_. C� � b D a V,_ _. tZ_ S-`" i� C cC �T - �,��,�.,, �,T_-1 I" � CfTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Date: February 18, 2003 � To: William Burns, City Manager �� From: Subject: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Variance Request, VAR #03-04, Timothy Miller, 591 Dover Street M-03-26 INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Timothy Miller, is seeking two variances to will allow for the reduction of the front yard setback at his residence at 591 Dover Street. The first variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The original home was constructed prior to 1949. When it was constructed, it was built facing Dover Street, meeting all setback requirements. When Dover Street was vacated in 1991, Broad Avenue became the code required front yard, because iYs the property's only street frontage. With Broad Avenue becoming the front yard, it left a non-conforming front yard setback at 18.2 feet. The second variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the west side of the home. The petitioner would like to use this porch to connect his existing decks on the north and south sides of his home. City Staff has not been able to identify any hardship for this variance request. Undue hardship does exist, when it comes to the placement of the existing house, however, the desire to construct a porch on the west side of the home that connects the decks on the north and south sides of the home is not a unique condition. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS First Variance Request — At the February 12, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #03-04. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the front yard setback variance recognizing an existing non-conformity. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Second Variance Request — At the February 12, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #03-04. After a brief discussion, the Appeals .. Commission recommended denial of the front yard setback request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house, as no similar variances have been granted in the past, an alternative does exist, and there is no undue hardship. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. 67 FRIDLEY CITY COC'NCIL �IEETING OF FEI3RIIARY' 2�1, 2003 PAGE 8 �tOTIO�I by Councilmember Bu�kcom to ��'aive the readim� and approve Ordinance �io. 1171 on second readim�. Szconded b� C�uuncilmember �b'olfe UPO\ .a � OICE � OTE, .aLL �'OTI�G .al E. `1.41'OR LC`D DECLARED THE �'[OTIO�S CARRIED L�r:1NI�[O �SLI". �'E�V BtiSIrESS 12. F[RST RE.aDING OF AV OR`�INANCF. A�1L�lD[\G ER[DLE�' C[TF CODE CH:�PTER 603, IYTOXICATIti�: LI Nir. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this Chapter 603. The draft lan��uage was int additional changes they feel appropria[e. last week. DEF1�1[NG �e udded a detinition of "bowlin� centers' to to be a startine point, and Council may have faxed a copy of Che proposed ordinance to AMF Mayor Lund asked for a clarification wtth respect to the changes under "Restaurant." The last sentence in that section sai a license year was a minimum of 40% of the total �ross sales of the business. �(r. Pribyl said that to be a restaurant, they mus[ do at�least 40 percent of their total eross sales of the business in food and liquor. � Councilmember Billines stated that under the definition f°bowlin� centei' it �vas specified that a minimum of 60 percent of the eross sales for the busi ess for the vear had to be from items associated with the sport of bowling, such a, the lanes, sh e rental, ball sales, etc. In order to be defined as a restaurant. 40 percent oY the business had to be rom the sale of food and liquor. NfOTIO�I by Councilmember w'olfe to waive the reading d approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC AYE, �iAY0�2 LliYD DECLARED THE NIOTIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 13. VARIA1�iCE REQtiEST, VAR THE FRONT YARD SETBA STREET N.E. (WARD 3) BY TINIOTHY GENERALLY LOCATED AT REDUCE �9r. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this request imolved two variances for the property located at �91 Dover Street. The tirst variance was to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The second vanance was to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the �cest side oY the home. He said the property was zoned R-1, Sinele-Family Residential, as were the surrotmdin; properties. The property «as off Dover Street, but received access from Broad Avenue. The original home �vas constructzd prior to 1949. When it was co�structed, it �vas built facine Dover Street and met all the setback requirements. He believed that it was anticipated FRIDLEI' CITY' COGNCIL �[EETIrG OF FEBRUAR�' 2�1, 2003 PaGE 9 that Do�-er Street would be co�nected and, therefore, that woufd be the Yront of the house. When Dover Sveet �cas vacated in 1991. Broad :\c�nue became the cude-required front yard beeause the properties on the street fro�tage faced Broad. �Vhen Broad became a front vard, it left a non- confocmin_ front yard setback of 13.� feet Thc peti[iuner i� �c.kirn_ a �ariance to recognize this non-conformim,setback. V[r. Hickok said staff had not been ablz to identity any� hardship as defined by la�v for the variance request for the cc�nstruction of an opzn dzck or coc�red porch on thz �vesi side of the petitiuner�s hume. EIe said the law detined undue hardship as-: The proper[} cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requiremznts of the Code. Staff� research recognized that an alternative existzd. The propem could still be used as a single-family� home and there were already two decks connec[ed to the home. , 2. The nature of the variance is due to uniyue propeRy conditions. The proper[y had a unique condi[ion; howe�'er, that condition did not affect the petitioners ability ta have t�vo decks on the noRh and south sides of his home. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the ncighborhood. The Code required the front yard tu provide yard space to be used as preen areas. Che front yard setback was also required tbr aesthetic consideration to reduce the building line of si�ht encroachment into the nei�_hbor's Yront yard. There are no other homes on the block that comz this clo,e to encroachine this far into the front yard setback. �ir. Hickuk said staff recommended approval of the front yard setback variance recognizin� the existino non-conformity. The variance simply reco��nized a pre-existing condition. Approvin� this variancc should not set a precedent for imdeveloped lots in the future. He said the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the requcst to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the �cest side oY the house. No similar variances were granted in the past, an altemative does exist, and there was really no undue hardship in this case to suppoR such approvaL Staff recommended concurrence with the Appeals Commission. Councilmember Eiolkcom stated that Mc and Mrs. Miller �vere not present at the meetino. �fr. Hickok replied that staff had spoken �vith Mr. and �1rs. Miller and they were awaze of tonighY s meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom said that if there was a porch with or without a cover or a deck, it would not matter because it would not conform to the City's ordinance. btr. Hickok aereed. He said it ��as still a structure. Councilmember Bolkcom said there had not becn any similar variances like this in the past. She indicaced that her concern was that the Millers �a�ere �ot present at the meeting even Chough they w�ere intormed of the date. FRIDLEY C[TY COUNC[L MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2�, 2003 PAGE 10 Councilmember Billines asked if the front vard faced Broad Street. �Ir. Hickok said it did. Councilmember Billinss asked if Dover Strezt was vacated in i[s entiretv. �tr. Hickok said it was. VIOTIO� bv Councilmzmber Bolkcom to [able Variance Reyuest, VAR �03-0�4, until �[arch 3. 2003. Seconded bv Councilmember Wolfe. CPO\ A�'OICE VOTE, aLL �'OTI�IG AY"E, �I_aYOR LL1�D DECLARED THE �IOTIO\S CARRIED Cr:��I�tOUSLY". 1-1. IrFOR�IAL ST:1TL\S REPORTS. � Councilmember Bolkcom wi�he� Councilmember Billines a happy birthday. �fayor Lund stated the second an al Southem Anoka Communit� Assistance spaghetti dinner �vould be held at Vturzsn Hall in C fumbia Heights on Wednesday. February 26, 2003, at �:30 p.m. �ir. Hickok Community De�elopment irector, stated he would like to invite everyone to attend the Home and Garden Fair on Saturday, arch l, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Dr. Bums, City Vtanager. asked Council meet �vith him after the meeting [o discuss their response to the Govemor's proposed LGA c s. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could t k about the request regardine Xcel Energy. Dr. Burns stated they received a request from ayor Rybak for support of a project by Xcel Energy to convert three of their plants from coal to as. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if thev could discus the letter thev received from the Andover City Council about the Anoka County Community De� lopment oreanization. Dr. Burns stated he was not prepared to talk about that m ter. Councilmember Billings statzd that legislation had been i roduced to the State Legislature on this matter. Mayor Lund said he thought they needed to discuss the matter. AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2003 � oF FRIDLEY Date: February 27, 2003 Q� To: William Burns, City Manager �" From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #03-04, Timothy Miller, 591 Dover Street M-03-33 INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Timothy Miller, is seeking two variances to will allow for the reduction of the front yard setback at his residence at 591 Dover Street. The first variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity. The original home was constructed prior to 1949. When it was constructed, it was built facing Dover Street, meeting all setback requirements. When Dover Street was vacated in 1991, Broad Avenue became the code required front yard, because it's the property's only street frontage. With Broad Avenue becoming the front yard, it left a non-conforming front yard setback at 18.2 feet. The second variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the west side of the home. The petitioner would like to use this porch to connect his existing decks on the north and south sides of his home. City Staff has not been able to identify any hardship for this variance request. Undue hardship does exist, when it comes to the placement of the existing house, however, the desire to construct a porch on the west side of the home that connects the decks on the north and south sides of the home is not a unique condition. CITY COUNCIL ACTION This item was tabled at the February 24, 2003, City Council Meeting, because the petitioner wasn't present. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS First Variance Request—Atthe February 12, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #03-04. After a brief discussion, the Appeals 33 Commission recommended approval of the front yard setback variance recognizing an existing non-conformity. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Second Variance Request— At the February 12, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #03-04. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the front yard setback request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house, as no similar variances have been granted in the past, an alternative does exist, and there is no undue hardship. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. 34 FRIDLEY CITY" COC`V"C[L �[EETING OF tilARCH 3, 2003 PAGE IS children. She sai�l she would I�e a fznce put up aro�md thz pond. She said it was a nice neighburhood and this project wo Id detinitcly chan�e the d}namics of the nei�hborhood. Councilmember [�illim_s asked lbtr. Bolin replied it �cas zoned �t-1. Councilmember Billines asked w$at l I�? ��as currentiv zoned. Id be put in an'Yf-1 district. �Ir. Bolin said there wzre a number o ditferent light indusvial uses. anythin� could be put in that did not imolve outdoor stora��e or anipulation of goods or products. Councilmemb�r Billinos stated if they di not rezone 1152 and access [o l 1�3 was from Norton .Avenue the propert} could be bought for li ht industrial use and [here could be [raftic bringine in goods and takin� eoods out. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings asked about traffic pa terns in an M-1 district. Mr. Bofin said there was more traffic from ind strial and commercial users during the daytime hours than there would be from residential users. Ms. Reynolds said there �vas a problem with the z ing map. According to the map they received from City Hall their neighborhood was Gl, whi was local business. She stated that at the Plannine Commission meeting, they had no idea w y it was M-L It was corrected but not until she asked. �Ir. Bofin replied that [his map «•as an old version. this map should have been destroyed. MOTION bv Councilmember W'olfe to close the Bamette. UPO\ A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI�IG AYE, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEll AT 9:50 P.NI. OLD BUSINESS: was corrected a couple of years ago, and Seconded by Councilmember YOR LUND DECLARED THE , 8. VARIANCE REQtiEST, VAR tt03-04, BY TIMOTHY MILLER, TO REDtiCE THE FRONT YARD SF.TBACK, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 591 UOVER STREET N.E. (WARD 3) (TABLED FEBRUARY 2�3, 2003). Mr. Bolin, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner was Timothv Miller, di� property o�vner of �91 Dover. �ir. Miller �vas seekino t�co variances that would allow for the reduction of the front vard setback at his residence located at �91 Dover Street. The first variance was to reduce the FRIDLEY CITY COUVCIL hIEETI�G OF MARCH 3, 2003 PAGE 16 front yard setback from 39 feet to 13? feet This would recognize the existin�� non-conformiry. the esistin� placement of his home. The second variance request would be to reduce [he front yard setback from ?9 feet do��n to 10 feet to accommodate proposed constructio� of an open covered porch on the ��est side of his' home. He said the Appeals Commission recommended appro�al of the front yard set back �'anance to recoenize the existing non-conformity. The �ariance simply recognized the pre-zxistin� condition. Approving the variance �tould not set a precedent For undeveloped lots in the future. With respect to the second variance request the Appeals Commission recommended denial. �Io similar variances ha�:e been eran;zd in the past. an alternati�e option did zxist, and thzre did not appear to be undue hardship. Staff recommended concurrence with the Appzals Commission. Nir. Timothy �filler, �9l Dover Street. stated the porch issue ��as discussed at the Appeals Commission meeting. Councilmember W'olfe asked how he felt about the decision. �ir. Miller said it would have been nice if it was approved. �fOTIO�! bv Councilmember Barnette to remove this item from the table. Seconded bv Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A V"O[CE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LL�D llECLARED THE MOT[OV CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY". Mr. Miller stated that he did not think there was anything more he could do to eet it approved. He said they mentioned something about changing the address, and he did not want to pursue that option. He would like to leave everyrthing the way it was and eet thz setbacks taken care of. �tOTI0�1 by' Councilmember Bamett to approve the front yard setback variance request recoenizing an existine non-conformity. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. liPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECL.aRED THE MOTIOr CARRIED UNAMIbiOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnett to deny the front yard setback request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. tiPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LL�D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UVA�IIMOUSLY. NEW BtiSINESS: 9. FIRST READI�IG OF A\' ORDINaIYCE T�O A�If�:vD THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLE�', Nt[NNESOTA, BY DISTRICTS II�G a CHANGE [� ZOMN •1, BY MICH.4EL JtiAIRE, T � _ C[1YOF FRIDLEY IRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVki. N.F:. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 CITY CO_ UNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE March 6, 2003 Timothy Miller 591 Dover Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Miller: On March 3, 2003, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for variance, VAR #03-04, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 18.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity and denied your request for variance, VAR #03-04, to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the west side of the home on Lots 18-24, Block K, Riverview Heights Addition, generally located at 591 Dover Street NE. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3599. Sincerely, ��, y_ i �� c�— Paul Bolin Planning Coordinator Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley Planning Department by March 20, 2003. .; . .---��_._ . _ � -' l'L �(% _ � � Concur with actio taken �J STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of: A Variance, VAR #03-04 Owner: Timothy Miller � 426911 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 3rtl day of March, 2003, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: The City approved your variance to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 182 feet to recognize an existing non-conformity; however, the City denied your request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open covered porch on the west side of the home, legally described as Lots 18 through 21, Block K, Riverview Heights together with Northerly 25 Feet of Vacated Dover Street lying adjacent to said lots, subject to easement of record, generally located at 591 Dover Street NE. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approvai with no stipulation. See Ui[y Council meeting minutes of Nlarch 3, 2�03. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA �� ) CITY OF FRIDLEY ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK � � I, Debra A. Skogen, 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 my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subs ribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the .�rr� day of , 2003. DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley �J''i*''rr! 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk : �', .. (SEAL). -�, ; t:. ,, `; 'i,; , Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within that period. FRIDLEI�' CITY COUV� �IEETINC OF MARCH 3, 2003 � children. She said she would like a f�nce put up around [he pond. She said it was a nice nei�,hborhood and this project w�ould definitely change the dynamics of the neighborhood. Councilmember Billin�s asked �chat 1 l�? �cas currentiv zoned. Ntr. Bolin replied it was zoned �t-l. Councilmem6er Billin�s asked �ch2t could be put in nn'��1-1 district. 1�4r. Bolin said there �rere a number of diffzrent li�_ht industrial uses. .anythinv could be put in that did not involve outdoor srora,�e or manipulation ot eoods or products. Councilmember Billin�s statzd if the�� did not rezone 1 L53 a�d access to 1 L52 was from Norton Avenue the property could be bou�,ht fur light indpstrial use and there could be traftic brin,in� in goods and [akin� goods out. Mr. F3olin stated tha[ was correct_ Councilmember Billinos asked about traffic patterns in an M-1 district. VIr. Bolin said there was more traftic from industrial and commercial users during thz daytime hours than [here �aould be from residential users. �4s. Reynolds said there ��as- a proolem with the zoring map. .4ccordin� to the map they received from Citv Hall their nei�hborhoud was C-I. �a'hich was local business. She stated that at the Plannine Commission meetin`, thev had no idea �vhy it �vas V[-L It was corrected but not until she asked. �1r. Bolin replied that [his map was an oid version. [t �vas corrected a couple of years ago, and this map should have been destroyed. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe ro close the public hearin�. Seconded by Councilmember Bamette. UP01� A V"C.TC� `r".3T_E, .4LL VO:I.^dG P.Y."�., M:>Y^vR i.i�Ni� L�EiLr'iRE� TiIE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:50 P.NI. OLD BliSINESS: 8. �'ARIArCE REQtiEST, VAR #03-0�, BY' T[vIOTHY hIILLER, TO REDUCG THE FRO\T YARD SETBACK, GP;VERALLY LOCATED AT 591 DOVEK STREET �.E. (�VARD 3) (TABLED FEE3RUARY' ?4, 2003). Mr. Bolin. Plannine Coordinawr, stated th� petitioner �tas T;mothy .\Iiller, the property owner of �91 llo�er. �ir. Miller �sas szeking t��o variances that would allo�ti for the reduction oY the front yard setback at his residence located at �9l Do��er StreeC The first ��ariance �vas to reduce the FRIDLEY CITY COU��'C[L IVIEET[VG OF �tARCH 3, 2003� PAGE 16 . fron[ yard setback from 29 feet to 13? feet This would recoenize the existing non-conformity. the existinv placement ot his hume. The second �ariance request would be ro reduce the front yard setback t�om 29 feet down ro l0 feet to accommodate proposed construction of an open covered porch on the �tiest side of his home. He said the Appeals Commission recommended appro�al ut thz Yront yard set back variance to reco,nize the existing non-conformity. The variance simply reco�nized the pre-existin�� condition. Appr�vin� the variance would not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future. �L'i[h respect to the szcond �ariance request the 4ppeals Cemmissien recommended denial. No similar �ariances have been granted in the past. an alternati�e option did exist, and there did not appear to be undue hardship. Staff recommendzd concurrence �vith the :�ppeals Commission. Mr. Timothy Miller, �9l Dover Street, stated the porch issue was discussed at the Appeals Commission meeting. Councilmember Wolfe asked how he felt about the decision. Mr. Vtiller said it would have been nice if it was approved. :�tOT[O� bv Councilmember Barnette ro remove this item from the table. Seconded bv Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A �"OICE � O�I'E, ALL VOTIVG AYE, NI.4YOR Lti\D DECLARED THE MOTIO�' CARRIED tiNA�1IMOUSLY'. �Ir. Miller stated that he did not think thzre was anything more he could do to get it approved. He said they mzntioned somethine about changing the address, and he did not want to pursue that option. He would like ro lea��e everything the way it was and oet the setbacks taken care of. i�tOTION by Councilmember Bamett to approve the front yard setback variance request recoonizine an existin� non-conformity. Seconded by Cauncilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAMI�IOliSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnett to deny the iront yard setback request to reducz thc: front yard setback from 29 feet to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house. Seconded bv Councilmember Wolfe. UPOV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNA�IIVIOUSLY. / NEW ESS: ��--°� 9. F[RST RE:�DI\G O� '��r� TO A�IEtiD THE CIT�' CODE OF THE CITI' OF FRIDLE ': CYNF:SOTA, K[\G A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS,FirE"LOrING REOUGST, ZOA #03-1, aEL JtiAIRE. TO FRIDLEY C[1'�" COC ��L �[EET[�fG OF FEBRti.aRY' 21. 2�63 P �IOTIO� bc Coun�ilmzm6er Bolkcom to �cai�z the readin� ar.d appro�e Or�ir,aac� �o. l I'1 or secon� r�s�ir.�, j�condzc `��.� Councilnember ��'olfe CPO\ .a � O[CE � OTE, .-�LL � OTI`G .>1 E. �IAI'OR LL .\D DECL.�RED THE �[[)TIO�ti C_�RRIF.D C�.a�I�(OLSLS�. �E�� BCSI�ESti (2. F[R5T RE.-\D[\G OP .�\ ORD[�.a`CE .-��[E�D(\G FR[DLEY CIT� CODI CH:�PTER 60:, I�TOtiIC.aTI�G LIQLOR, DEFI�I`G BO��LI\G CE`TERS. 1(,. PribyL Fir.ar,c: Director. s.atzd this chaa_� addzd a detinition of "bo��lin� centzrs" to Chapczr 603. Thz drah lam�uase �4a; intzndzd to be a startin� point, ar,d Council ma� have additional chanves thz� feel approptiate. They faxed a copy of the proposed ordinance to .-�VIF last �vzek. �fa�or Lund asked for a clan£catiun with respect ro the changes under '`Restaurant." The last sentznce in that section said a license year «as a minimum of 40°ro of the ro�al �ross sales of che business. �[r. Pribyl said tha[ to be a restaurant, they must du at least �l0 percent ot their total oross sales of the business in foud and fiquor. Councilmember Billin�s stated that under the definition of "bowlin� center" it was specified that a minimum of 60 percent of the gross sales for thz business for the year had ro be from items assuciatzd with the sport of buwlin�, such as the lanes, shoe rental, ball sales, etc. In order to be defined as a restaurant. -10 percent oY thz bwinzss had to be from the sale of food and liquor. vIOTION bv Councilmember Nolfe to waive the readin� and approve the o�dinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPOV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI�IG MOTIOVS QARRIED II1rAtiI1I0USLY. 13. �'ARIat:CF. I THE FROrT STREET �.E. ��liEST, V Y�ARD SET WARD 3) AYE, MAYOR LU�ID DECLARED THE 3Y OTI�Y' bIILLER, TO Y LOCATED AT 591 �Ir. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this request involved two variances for the propeRy locatzd at �91 Dover Street. -fhe first vanance was to reduce the front yard setback from 29 feet tu 13? feet ro recognize an existing non-conformity. The second variance was to reducz the front vard setback from 29 fzet to 10 fzet to construct an open covered porch on the ��est sidz of the home. He said the propert}' «as zoned R-1. Single-Family Residzntial, as ��ere the ;urrour,din_ properties. The property �cas off Dover Street, but received access Yrom Broad :\� enue. Tltz ori;inal home ��as construeted prior to 19-19. ��"hen it �cas constructzd. it �cas built facin� Do�er Street and met al� the setback requirments. E[e belie��ed that it was anticipated ,� FRIDLEY CITl� COCrZIL �[EETIrG OF FEBRUAR�� 2�. ?n03 PaGE 9 that Du�:r J�reet s�ould bz connected and. thzrefore. that «ould be the front ot [he house. �,l�hen Do�er S[::�[ ��s �.aca[ed in !a��l. Bread .a�.�aue 6ec.rte the cude-rzqu;red Cront yard because the proerc[ies or. �he str.et fronts_e faced Broad. �lhzn Bread becamz a front �ard. it left a non- l'OCtO�IC:�_ C'�`1: `.�Ci{ SZ[�1CS O: �3.� t.Z.. T^.0 r2;iCORtC U Sc'��i:II'_ 9��3Ra:li� [0 L2C0�`I]IZ:' [}�!S non-con[ormin�� setback. �L. Hicko'; _aid staif had not be:n abfz to iden�i:� any hardship as det7ned by law for the ��dL11�CC C�4l1C�i iOC C�lZ COR�iCL'l;ilJtt Jt 1R J�JZ[1 uZli� JC CO'vc'CZt`�c PUCC�1 OR I�'iZ ��"c'Si �i�Z Ot ii1C peti�iunzr�s home. He said tl:e lau dztined undue hardship as: L Thz prooert� cannot b� put to reasunable we it used under the requirements of the Code. S[aYf s research recoenizzd chat an alternative existed. Tne propem' could �till be used as a sin,lz-familc home and [here were afready n�o dzeks connected t� the home. ?. The nature o£the �ariance is due to unique property conditions. The properry had a unique condition; how'ever, that condition did not affect the petitioner's ability [o have two decks on the nonh and south sides of his home. 3. The variance ��'ill not alter the characrer of the nei�h6orhood. The Code required the front yard to procide yard space to be used as green areai. The front yard se�back was also required for aesthetic consideration [o reduce the building line of sight encroachment into the nei�hbor's front yard. There are no other homes on the block that come this close to encroaching this far into the front yazd setback. �Ir. Hickok said staff recommended approval of the front vard setback variancz recognizing the existing non-conformity. Th� �ariance simpfy reco�nized a pre-existine condition. Approving this variance should not set a precedent for undeveloped lou in the future. He said the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the request to reduce the front yard setback from 29 fee[ to 10 feet to construct an open, covered porch on the west side of the house. No similar variances were granted in the past, an altemative does exist, and there was really no undue hazdship in this case to support such approvaL Staff recommended concurrence �rith the Appeals Commission. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. and Mrs. Miller were not present at the meeting. �1r. Hickok replied that staff had spoken with Mr. and �1rs. Miller and they were a�vare of tonighYs meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom said that if there was a porch �ti�th or without a cover or a deck, it would not matter because it would not conform to the Ciry�'s ordinance. �4r. Hickok avreed. He said it ��as still a structure. Councilmember Bolkcom said there had not been any' similar cariances like this in the past. She indicated thst her cuncem «:is that the �Iillers �aere not presznt at �he meeting e�'en thoueh they �tere informed of the date. `� FRIDLE�" C[T�' COC�IL �IF.ET[rG OF FEBRUARY ?�l, 2003 P.aGE 10 Councifinember Billin_�s askzd if che front vard faced Broad S�reet. �L. Hicko: s�i� i. ±id. Councilmemh�r Biflines :uked ;I Do�zr Strezt �cas �acutzd in i[s entiret�. �.Ir. Hickok said i[ was. �fOTIO� o� Councilmember Bolkcom to table Vanance Request, b".-�R �0�-0-1. uncil �[arch 3, �00:. Secoedzd bc Counciimemoer �b'olt'e. CPO�� A �"0[CE ��OTE, ,aLL �'OTI�G �YE, �fAYOR LC?iD DECL?.RED THE �IOTIO�"S C.aRRIED C"r_�`I�[OCSL�'. 1-�. I�FOR:�[.�I: STAT[,-S REPORTS. �, Councilmember Bolkcom wished Councilmember B[Ilings a happy birthday. �tayor Lund stated the second annuaf Southem Anoka Community Assistance spaghetti dinner would be held at �iurzyn Hall in Columbia Hei�hts on Wednesday. February 26. 2003, at �:30 p. m. �ir. Hickok, Community De�elopment Director, stated he would like to invite eaeryone to attend the Home and Garden Fair on Saturday, Mazch 1, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Dr. Bums, City Manager, asked Council to meet with him after the meetin� to discuss their response to thz Govemor's proposed LGA cuts. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could talk about the request regarding ;Ccel Energy. Dr. Bums stated they received a request &om Mayor Rybak for support of a project by Xcel Energy to convert duee of their plants from coal to gas. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could discuss the letter they received from the Andover City Council about the Anoka County Community Devele�men[ organfz2tion. Dr. Bums stated he was not prepazed to talk about thaimatter. Councilmember Billings stated tha[ legislation had been introduced to the State Legislature on this matter. �fayor Lund said he thought they needed to discuss the matter. \ � 41�Q��2(j iORRENS Receipt # � � Tax Lien� Release r Date/Time , � ❑ Transfer Doc.Order �of�__ , ❑ Division ❑ Status Recordability ❑ New legal Description Filing Fees � S� ❑ GAC � Deterred Specials No Change — Well Cert Rec'd ❑ Certified Copy' .. � Non-standard Document �om Certficate p-(�O / 1 # New Certificat � O BK 266 Page/Cert ,�,�T7.� i.i-,�.�� FtIUL_Y CiTY JF VHLtKI� ��Ii.n�U�J � ov�l Jviv�'r,i17Y AVc �vt r�iu��_Y. �a i ��y3[ � .. DOCUMENTNO. 426977.0 TORRENS ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CCRIIFY THAT THE WIT!iIN INSTRt1MENT WA5 FlLED IN THIS OFFlCE FOa ReCORO o�d APR 0 7 2 0 0 3 AT 4: 3 O PM AND 1h'AS DULY RECORDED. FEES AMD TAXES IN THE AtdOU`JT OP S 2 O. 0 0 PAI�. 2003461498 RECEIPT N0. MAUREEN J. DEVINE ANOKA COUNiY PFGPEF7}' TAX ADMINISTRAiOR,�RECOROcR: REGISTRAR OF T!lLfS JMD BY DEPUII' PROPERTY IAX ADPRNISTRATOR,�FECORDER�RE6ISTRAR OF TlTLfS 24