The URL can be used to link to this page

VARIANCE - 43134. �, • . ci�r o� F�rn�.�r 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRlDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMNIUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: X Residential CommerciaUindustrial �i�ns PROPERTY INFORMATiON: - site plan required for submittat, see attad�ed Address: 650 Dover Fridley, MN Property Identification Number: R03-30-24-32-OI I7 and R03-30-24-32-0118 .� Legal Description: Lot 26 ► 2� Blodc w Tr�ct/Addition River View Heig�ts Anoka, Minnesota Current Zoning: geS Square footage/acreage: 5500 Square Feet ReasonforVariance: A variance is needed because the current rec�ulations make it impossi le to use e pxoper y or res sn ia purposes. ( See Attached) Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license� Yes No X If Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? ; Was that license ever denied or revoked� Yes , No x �� FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on �a property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to prooessingj NAME:Frank R. D'Aigle and Mar�aret E. D'Aigle � ADDRESS: 14252 - 55th Street NE Ro ers, MN 5374 ` � DAYTIME PHONE: f 612) 497-390o SIGNAlURE/DA . � T PETITIONER INFORMATION ; (��E; William and Wendy Nergard ADDRESS:7760 Central Avenue, S rin� Lake Park, MN 55432 DAYTIME PHONE: ( 612 ) 550-0050 . SIGNATURE/I�ATE: Sectiono#CityCode: 205.07(3) (:A) (2);205.07(3) �C) •205.�7(3) (D) (1)�nd(3 FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: __� Receipt #: 3� Reoe'wed By: �L�� Application Number. �,� �1 — . Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notifcation Date: 60 Day Date: , �+ ! � : Vt4RiANCE APPLlCATION ' SUBMISSION CHECKLIST` The foilowing shall be the minimum submission requirements to the �4ppeais Commission. Apptications will not be accepted if #he foilowing is rtat submi�Eec�: RESIDENTIAL: . ITEM Compieted appiication, with fee (Application is considered complete if ali blanks are completed, and both fee owner and petitioner have si ned) Scaled site �p1an of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed structures, lot and block number, adjacent street names, and buitdings on adjacent lots within 10 feet of tMe common lot lines. Elevation of buiiding and descxiption, o# materials. Narrative of proaosed buildina_ RECEIVER'S ✓ � � 7• t�-`�� ✓ �' �� •�:�� ` '� `i �' �• �� COMMER IAL AND 1ND TRIAL: ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVERS COMPIETE , 'S � INITIALS IN Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are compieted� and both #ee owner and titioner have si Scaled site plan of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed . structures, lot and block number, adjacent street names, and buiidings on adjacent lots within '10 feet of the common lot lines. Elevation of building and description of materials. Landscape plan for aU projects requiring a parking !ot expansion of four (4) or � more s aces. Gradin and draina e lan. Erosion control lan. � � Calculations for stormwater runoff: � 07-17-1996 02�13PM O��'CE (6L2� 497-4747 Ftax (�.2.) a��soo �% ��c.�-�� .E�-t-��. FRXsC�ctt�LE to: S c.�-�- �1 «ko � canpA.n�: G �j, a� �r� � �'r,�,- Fi�X. # .�� — %�7 612 497 3800 P.01 ��sw 4s�h sc. n E st�icE �rn" RpGE'RS, t72n 55374 F�.ocn: �od �� `�� : � f ��y� COVER 51)EE'� + � pR�� 5�.�-`, �'��`W4w 15 '�[ PJC�O%�e0 SCt.rvt/y„ Gn� GI��iT�'.0/►6i, � JY�ST/�tCY'i0/�S 0 �' S�tve, ��Z SU,rv��or's� P��.� Loo1� ��' over �i�►d �iJe ►yJ� � iN.�.r I'�2 t oiLjr�naa� i o� s. �'� �,¢..� G,-c.. �d � �ta^a � �P,�Gc ��5 -�° b��,�- o.L �%�e 5li, e� v�c� I e� n� � l2..,aU/ L�►� � G� � h� .ye �.� SGt�'cJeCy ��'S CN�nl�� / �O 6PT��nc. �MorJOW_ �- d l�s i�-Lo�(�,5 Wow �nre. wil� nl$e� Ja�ra��ts `��` ) -- I,-o+ s � L� a-- ��-y�,� s��k . � .. ��c�, ��a s�� re � r: ve i.JU� � w'� 1� b� c�,-{-�s`f') �e� �' 1' Gl � 3 ` S�-b•��. b�� w � � � 1� 5 �� l ) -��.. ,�o ��. �e �/ ey yl,6�s ,�.�r,r ��s ro,n �-o s�►�s-e. � ��nW�y 0'^ ��+se Ca�l�� m-L a� '�-F�17��'17�`i �o� a�r� �4.�es�o�,s d�t� �p�-�- ya� fY�wy, �.a,� e. _ 0 � �j �;y1 �e � 07-17-1996 02�13PM � ��:� �6>z/�-�� r c��: f�� Mariy or Paul Otto � Assoc'sates 682-3 522 Marty or Paul: 612 497 3$00 P.02 e � �/'�� //IVi ¢510-fSt� �'t. /it� �.2102 �«�, �1Ns�� f� f�� (6�2%�r-,�ao F�• . Da�.• Rod n°Ai�le Ju1y 16, 1997 c�.s,� + .._..� P� Enclosed is a copy of the Proposed Plan for the Lot in Fridley. City Sta�ihas now decided that they do not believe that a basement can be built on this iot. Therefore, we will be changing the plan. See the Artaci�d Px-oposed plan that I have modified. Make Sure you Include the followin�g on the survey: 1, Street and rite of way. I was told by the city that there is a 40' road rite of Way which would be 20' to each side of the center line. Shaw both road and right of way. 2. Adjacent hoases distance from road and right of way. 3. Elevation5 of road, adjacent houses, and lot. 4. Set back liues as listed in code. I befieve they are as foilows: Front 35' Side 10' for house S' for garage 3' �'or drivewa.y Back 1/4 of lot not less than 25' or more than 27.5' (l 10I4=27.5) 5. Set backs for house as proposed nsin,g C� 7'. g. Frorrt 20' Side 10' for house 5' for gara�e and 3' for driveway Back remainder af wha.t is left over House Dimensions should be 26' x 50'. W�th 50' wide lot we should have �nough room for a 10' driveway 3' side setback from �ot line and 1' space between houss and driveway. Elevation vf 1 st Floor to be 824.5 to meet FEMA standards. L,et me know if there are ariy other requireme�ts that ma3r be necessary. Please contact me ASAP regarding the survey of the house. Thank You < • LAND USE APPLICATION FILE CHECKLIST Date Created: 2� File Number: 1(t��17�1v • Summary of Request: _ �:,��;,,�,,,,�� - Date Submitted: Application Deadline: 10 Day Compietion Notice: (Official Receiving Date) - 60 Day Action Date: I, , understand that while my application was submitted for (applicant's name) review on ,_the application deadline is: ,_ and :the • aP E,' ��. 60 day action window►wiW�not4b�e4gin=�t�r�ti��l�rec:eive a letter stating that nty�app��%��.�,<�_ ��_: � : complete. - � : s i 1 also understand that the City may, at any time during the 60 day action window, in writing, notify me that the process will be extended an additional 60 days. (signed) (witnessed by receiver) Application Found Complete _� yes no Application Completion Notices Mailed: Scheduled Planning Commission: Scheduled Appeals Commission: Scheduled City Cou�cil: < � � , , , � _ � • • ci �jN�F CITY OF FRIDLEY FRlDLEI' GOMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW File Number 21 File Date �/17/97 Meeting Date 8/13/97 Description: VAR ��97-12, 650 Dover Street, William & Wendy Nergard Variances for single family dwelling & attached garage ** Return to the Community Development Department ** r Barbara Dacy Community Development Director John Flora Public Works Director Ed Hervin Cit�� Assessor Scott Hickok Planning Coordinator Ron Julkowski Chief Building Official Dick Larson Fire Marshalt Michele McPherson Planning Assistant Dave Sallman Police Chief Jon wlczek Asst. Public Works Director �� , �-�,1—!' 5�� L ��-��,�. �; � --� 2-2� ��—�� $iP �� • � 3 �� ?� 1 �. ��...�:�-.ti-- �`1 �> C �� i.� I ��- °.'� �- %c,f-C� ��-� �. iF 'i�l`�� -r��,M�'� _ �`��7� ��t% � �;�a-�� -_ %�l ��v, �= �{'' -�� -�- ��-� `�- -� ZZj • • CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Property owners within 350 feet of 650 Dover Street CASE NUMBER: VAR #97-12 APPLICANT: William and Wendy Nergard PURPOSE: • To reduce the lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft.; • To increase the lot coverage from 25% (1,375 sq. ft.) to 32% (1,760.92 sq. ft.); • To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22 ft.; • To reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 ft. to 17.5 ft.; To allow construction of a new single family dwelling with attached garage LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 650 Dover Street LEGAL DESCRIPT/ON: Lot 26 & 27, Block W, Riverview Heights DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, August 13, 1997, 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OF HEARING: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMMODATIONS: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than August 6, 1997. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: August 1, 1997 VAR 4�97-12 650 Dover Street 033024320034 COPELAND DONALD O & EVELYN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7981 BROAD AVE N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320078 LERUM DONA�D O OR CURRENT RESIDENT 651 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320081 RICE JOHN M JR 8� KARLEEN V OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8041 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320094 MARTH DAWN M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 641 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320097 HEDLUND GORDON OR CURRENT RESIDENT 665 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320100 MCSHANE DANIEL M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8021 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320103 KOCZUR JOHN JR OR CURRENT RESIDENT 680 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320106 COOK DOUGLAS E OR CURRENT RESIDENT 630 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320109 BOOTS GERALD R& CHRISTI A L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 615 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 •033024320035 PETERSON JAMES T& LYNDA S OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7995 BROAD AVE N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320079 KUENSTING TIMOTHY J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 655 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 Mailed: 8/1/97 �033024320077 MALONE MICHAEL J 8 KATHLEEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 635 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320080 WAGNER WILLIAM A 8 DEBRA J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 681 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320092 033024320093 KELLER T P& VAN WAGNER SARA L TICHY JAMES ALLEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 625 DOVER ST N E 631 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 0330243�0095 HEDLUN MARIAN J OR CURR NT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY M 55432 033024320098 KORICH GEORGE W 8 DOLORES M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 687 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 0330�4320101 VETERANS ADMIN OF AFFAIRS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8031 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320104 ERICKSON WILLIAM E OR CURRENT RESIDENT 650 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320107 DICKSON DALE A 8� SHARON L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 600 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320110 SCHABER YVETTE L& SCOTT K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 627 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024 0096 HEDLUN MARIAN J OR CUR NT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY M 55432 033024320099 HOLMGREN LELA C OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8001 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320102 REITER DONALD OR CURRENT RESIDENT 684 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320105 HEDLUND GORDON OR CURRENT RESIDENT 650 ELY ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320108 KOSTOHRYZ GERALD 8 PATRICIA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 609 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320111 HUDYMA KIM B 8 KIMBERLY A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 641 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320112 033024320113 033024320114 JUST MARVIN D 8 KAREN K MAHER MONTE Q S MICHELLE M PADILLA DAVID C OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 661 CHERYL ST N E 7965 RIVERVIEW TER N E 670 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 - • - VAR 9�97-12 650 Dover Str 033024320115 033024320116 LIPA STEVE PADILLA DAVID C OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7995 RIVERVIEW TER N E 670 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRANK & MARGARET D'AIGLE 14252 55TH ST NE ROGERS MN 55374 033024320124 TUREK ANTHONY S OR CURRENT RESIDENT 61'I BUFFALO ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024 20127 FRIDLE CITY OF OR CUR ENT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY 55432 033024320130 MARQUARDT JOEL D OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7921 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320135 CLARK CONSTANCE K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 630 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320138 NASON CLARK A 8� MARJORIE M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 614 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 0330243 0141 HEDLUN MARIAN J OR CURR T RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY M 55432 0330243 0166 OR CUR NT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY M 55432 99302 940000 OR CU RENT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY N 55432 033024320121 ANDERSON DONALD & LEANNE L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 620 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 WILLIAM & WENDY NERGARD 7760 CENTRAL AVE SPRING LAKE PARK MN 55432 033024320128 BRADY DARLENE K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 641 BUFFALO ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320131 MARQUARDT JOEL D OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7921 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320136 NASON CLARK A 8 MARJORIE M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 614 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 0330243 139 HEDLUN GORDON OR CURR T RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY M 55432 � 033024320160 KOHLS ROBERT E& PATRICIA J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 640 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 993024 0000 OR CUR ENT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY 55432 MARIAN HEDLUND 1255_PIKE LAKE ROAD NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112 Mailed: 8/1/97 033024' 20117 D'AIG� FRANK R 8� MARGARET OR CUR ENT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY N 55432 033024320122 RUTHERFORD ROBERT 8 NANCY OR CURRENT RESIDENT 610 DOVER ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 03302 320126 FRIDL Y CITY OF OR CU RENT RESIDENT NE FRlDLEY N 55432 033024320129 MARQUARDT JOEL D OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7921 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320132 RUHLOW JULIE A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7941 RIVERVIEW TER N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 033024320137 NASON CLARK A 8 MARJORIE M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 614 CHERYL ST N E FRIDLEY MN 55432 03302 20140 HEDLU D MARIAN J OR CUR ENT RESIDENT N E •, FRIDLEY 55432 033024 20166 OR CU ENT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY N 55432 993024 0000 OR CUR NT RESIDENT NE FRIDLEY 55432 LARRY KUECHLE 202 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY M1V 55432 • _ C1TY OF FR[DLEY . FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERS[TYAVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-12A7 July 22, 1997 William and Wendy Nergard 7760 Central Avenue Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nergard: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applica�ts wit�in '�G days if their ianci use applications are complete. We received an application for a variance on July 18, 1997. This letter serrrps ta in#orm you tt�at your application is complete and that the City of Fridley wiil be processing your application in accordance with Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code. Your application schedule is as follows: Appeals Commission August 13, 1997 City Council approval August 25, 1997 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 572-3593. Sincerely, Michele McPherson Planning Assistant MM:Is cc: Frank and Margaret D'Aigle 14252 - 55`h Street N. E. Rogers, MN 55374 G97-129 CIT'1`�'OF FRIDLEY PROJECT S�"�i MMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioners, Wendy and William Nergard, are requesting that four variances be granted to. allow construction of a single family dwelling with an attached 20 ft. by 25 ft. two-car garage. The variances requested are as follows: 1. To reduce the required minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. 2. To increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 32% 3. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22 ft. 4. To reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 ft. to 17.5 ft. STATED HARDSHIP: See attached statement SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The City has in the past previously granted similar variances for reductions in the front and rear yard setbacks and the increase in lot coverage. The City has granted a lot area variance to 5,500 sq. ft. for an existing dwelling at 537 Fairmont Street. There are developments on similar-sized lots in the neighborhood. Similar requests to allow construction of dwellings on 40 foot wide lots as opposed to the subject property's 50 foot width have been denied. If the lot area variance is denied, there is no viable use of the property except to sell it to either of the adjacent properties. The subject property is also located in a flood plain and is required to meet the Federal Emergency Management Area flood plain standards for construction. This requires the first floor elevation to be at 824.5 and to be properly floodproofed. The petitioner is proposing to elevate the structure on an extended foundation and not on fill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: The proposed house and site design is well suited to the lot, minimizes the extent and amount of variances, and will be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission approve a reduction in the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. and an increase in the lot coverage from 25% to 32%, with the following stipulations: 1. No further expansion of the structures, principal, or accessory, shall occur on this lot. 2. No further enclosures such as a 7-foot privacy fence or a densely planted hedge shall be installed. An open work fence such as a standard 48-inch picket or chain link is acceptable. 18.01 Project Summary � VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 2 � �� As the variances for the front and rear yard setbacks are within previously granted requests, staff has no recommendation regarding these variances. If the Appeals Commission approves the variance requests to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks, staff recommends the following stipulations as condition of approval: 3. A dwelling and accessory structure shall be floodproofed in accordance with national standards for floodproofing. 4. The first floor elevation of habitable space shall be at 824.5 feet. 5. The petitioners shall submit a verifying survey verifying the first floor elevation of the dwelling. 6. The petitioners shall submit a plan for staff approval to minimize the aesthetic impact , of the floodproofing on adjacent properties. This could include both architectural (brick siding, etc.) and landscape improvements. 7. The petitioners shall install a hard surFace driveway by October 1, 1998. 8. The petitioners shall provide a short term solution for the proposed catch basin to be installed in the southwest corner of the property. 9. The petitioner shall sign a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages and liability should the dwelling be affected by flooding. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted 2-1 to recommend denial of the request to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request with the stipulations recommended. If the City Council approves the request, the City Attorney has suggested that an ordinance be drafted establishing standards for development of parcels 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. in size. 18.02 Project Summary � � VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 3 Petition For: Variances to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Location of Property: Dover Street PROJECT DETAILS Reduce the lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. Increase the lot coverage from 25% to 32% Reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22 ft. Reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 ft. to 17.5 ft. Legal Description of Property: Lots 26 & 27, Block W, Riverview Heights Size: 5,500 square feet Topography: Mostly flat; however, slopes from the street to the southeast corner Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Grass, some trees R-1, Single Family, Riverview Heights / 1922 Dover Street Dover Street N/A Drainage issues due to need for fill to address FEMA issues Comprehensive The Comprehensive and Zoning Plans are consistent in this Planning Issues: location. Public Hearing Comments: Several residents spoke in opposition of the request. 18.03 Project Summary � � VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 4 ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Residential SOUTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Residential EAST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Residential N RTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Residential Site Planning Issues: REQUEST: The petitioners, Wendy and William Nergard, are requesting that four variances be granted to allow construction of a single family dwelling with an attached 20 ft. by 25 ft. finro-car garage. The variances requested are as follows: 1. To reduce the required minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. 2. To increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 32. 3. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22 ft. 4. To reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 ft. to 17.5 ft. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: The subject property is located on Dover Street, approximately 211 feet east of Riverview Terrace. The property is composed of two 25 ft. by 110 ft. lots. It appears that the property has been vacant since the Riverview Heights area was platted in 1922. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There are single family dwellings located on the adjacent properties. The proposed dwelling will be 1,260 sq. ft. with a 500 sq. ft. attached garage. ANALYSIS Lot Area Section 205.07.03.A.(2) requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. where a lot is on a subdivision or plat recorded before December 29, 1955. Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the congestion of overcrowding in a residential neighborhood. 18.04 Project Summary • VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 5 � The subject property measures 50 ft. by 110 ft. for a total lot area of 5,500 sq. ft. Section 205.07.03.A.(2) allows lot areas on subdivisions or plats prior to 1955 to be 7,500 sq. ft. The property is 5,500 sq. ft., 2,000 sq. ft. less than the minimum required by Code. There are many similar sized properties in the Riverview Heights area which have been developed. If the City denies the lot area variance, the remaining economic alternative for the property owner is to sell the property to either one or both of the adjacent properties. The property owner indicated that when asked previously, the adjacent owners were not interested in buying the property. The property to the west is 6,600 sq. ft., and property to the east is 11,000 sq. ft. Both adjacent properties have single family dwellings measuring 1,396 sq. ft. and 968 sq. ft. The City has previously granted a variance of this nature. This is a 50-foot lot. All variance requests to allow construction on 40 foot wide lots have been denied by the City Council. Lot Coverage Section 205.07.03.0 requires that not more than 25% of the area of a lot shall be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings. Public purpose served by this requirement is to eliminate the congestion of overcrowding in a residential area. The petitioners are requesting a variance to increase the lot coverage from 25% to 32%. Lot coverage is a function of the lot area as the Code permits no more than 25% of the lot area to be covered by all structures. The petitioners are proposing a dwelling and garage of 1,760.92 sq. ft. This dwelling and garage is similar to size to many of the ramblers located in other neighborhoods. If this dwelling was proposed for the minimum 9,000 sq. ft. lot, it would not exceed the maximum 25% lot coverage (2,250 sq. ft. allowed). If the lot met the 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area, it also would not exceed the maximum of 25% (1,875 sq. ft. allowed). The City has previously granted a lot area variance for a residential request to 31 %. Front Yard Setback Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street parking wifhout encroaching on the public right-of-way and also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's fronf yard. The petitioners have requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22.15 ft. The dwellings on either side of the proposed structure do not meet the required front yard setback. The dwelling to the west is located 10.97 feet from the 18.05 Project Summary � VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 6 • front property line and the dwelling to the east is located 31.8 feet from the front property line. The petitioners have designed the proposed structure in a manner which is sensitive to the finro existing dwellings on either side (see drawing with site line). As is shown on the Certificate of Survey, the proposed dwelling does not encroach forward of a line connecting the front finro corners of the adjacent dwellings. The petitioners could meet the front yard setback requirement if the dwelling proposed was two stories in height and contained a smaller footprint. The proposed dwefling would need to be reduced by 13 feet in order to meet the required front yard setback. As the dwelling will need to be elevated 6 feet to meet the flood plain requirements, a finro-story dwelling may be more imposing on the adjacent structures than the encroachment into the front yard. The City has previously granted a front yard variance request to 8 feet. Rear Yard Setback 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 requiremenf is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. The petitioners are requesting a 10 foot reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 27.5 feet to 17.5 feet. The attached garage encroaches into the rear yard setback. The petitioners could construct a detached garage which could be located within three feet of the side and rear lot lines. The petitioners, however, have chosen to attach the garage which increases the setback from the adjacent properties. The proposed garage will be 63 feet from the structure to the rear and 24 feet from the structure to the west. The City has previously granted similar requests. Flood Plain Construction Requirements The Subject property is located within the flood plain of the Mississippi River. The City previously required a special use permit prior to allowing construction within the flood plain area. In 1995, the City revised its flood plain requirements to eliminate the special use permit requirement if certain standards were met: 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood plain requirements require that the first floor elevation be one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. The proposed dwelling will need to be located at 824.5 above sea level. The petitioners propose to elevate the dwelling on additional courses of masonry block, 6 feet in 18.06 Project Summary • VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 7 • height. The petitioners will need to address the aesthetic impact of the additional block. 2. Accessory structures such as the attached garage may be placed below the 100 year flood elevation if they are floodproofed in accordance with national floodproofing standards. 3. The City has typically required recording of a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages and liability should the dwelling be affected by flooding. A hard surface driveway will be required if the variances are approved and the dwelling is constructed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: The proposed site and house design is well suited to the lot. Side yard setbacks of 10 feet are met on both sides, thereby creating the typically required separation befinreen houses. The house and garage are located to minimize encroachment on adjacent properties. The front elevation of the house, with three roof lines, also adds interest and variety to the streetscape. Denial of the lot area variance would result in declaring the site unbuildable. If adjacent owners are not willing to purchase the lot, the lot may become a nuisance. The proposed house and site design appears to be a good exampfe of smaller lot development and would not detract from the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission approve a reduction in the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. and an increase in the lot coverage from 25% to 32%, with the following stipulations: No further expansion of the structures, principal, or accessory, shall occur on this lot. 2. No further enclosures such as a 7-foot privacy fence or a densely planted hedge shall be installed. An open work fence such as a standard 48-inch picket or chain link is acceptable. As the variances for the front and rear yard setbacks are within previously granted requests, staff has no recommendation regarding these variances. If the Appeals Commission approves the variance requests to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks, staff recommends the following stipulations as condition of approval: 18.07 Project Summary � • VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street Page 8 3. A dwelling and accessory structure shall be floodproofed in accordance with national standards for floodproofing. 4. The first floor elevation of habitable space shall be at 824.5 feet. 5. The petitioners shall submit a verifying survey verifying the first floor elevation of the dwelling. 6. The petitioners shall submit a plan for staff approval to minimize the aesthetic impact of the floodproofing on adjacent properties. This could include both architectural (brick siding, etc.) and landscape improvements. 7. The petitioners shall install a hard surface driveway by October 1, 1998. 8. The petitioners shall provide a short term solution for the proposed catch basin to be installed in the southwest corner of the property. 9. The petitioner shall sign a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages and liability should the dwelling be affected by flooding APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted 2-1 to recommend denial of the request to the City CounciL CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request with the stipulations recommended. If the City Council approves the request, the City Attorney has suggested that an ordinance be drafted establishing standards for development of parcels 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. in size. : 1 : Cer�tificate �f Sur�ve y VAR ��97-12 /' illiam Nergard � -o _ � t eet N -- r ,� �e�Eerllne _ po�e ._ __. ---.,..-- _- �-� _ -____--- __� -- - �— -- __ __ _ - , �,,__ � yx�stio9 °��b . � J ' S0.00 ^'°°g �' P,�` % '- .. , f `r 11 N 76'32 5�� E , � i I / � `1 _ ! i- =�, � �, �, N;. , j,� ; � . � ,� � , '� � �', � 3�, � , � ' `V o , g � 2 . � ��, L � � 2 J � I � � � 1 1 ` -- � _ i � 1 1 �t I — � �— — --� _ ' ` � � 3� � -' ist Ooor � � � 9 � �a.GO 5?4 cr � , o i '' �35 Ne�=82t.a5 � � °a �i 1 �°o �� C' ^ 00 ... i .. . - > 1 N � / � � (o _ _ � � o �� ° i . existinq I " I� � a � r. "818.8 house � ° I \ f \ , existing � "= 1 � ` I� �'. � I I 1 �� a house � a ' 1 f-�� 2 V I i � t0�i., �.� X819.5 �'\ .1-•" . , � / ' . . - ' � Proposed House �,p.0 ` 1st Roor elev=821,g1 ., _ ' � fn i �� ` � �'� ` proposed first Roor eler-824.5 � � °�° '' .! � - '.8.5 .. . ( ��1 _ . .. ' �� j 2v ` �, � � Lot=5495 s.f. i,, � �. � m � o � / �� 1 �19.5 � 'oj . �a� � ° .. � � � 11 1 . � �� T � / � � � � � ��' , �� -- �; �� 1 w o ; , 1 , o�r � _ - � m � `�, - � .� ��, � � �6 ' ..- - .-_� � . � o� 1 1 , 0 1 � � � 1�18� ash L �1 . ` �� ': � �. . �� xBt8.3 1 .. � � `a. � }.5-;1 - X \ ' � - � � i 4 5� ` � �� _��_��_' 1 � ezisGng goroge o�� t� � i-� � L 00 Building Setbacks: � a �� t �, 6� / '� s�b°�k ,�ne � ! . Front-35 floor elev-879.14 ° _ 1 \ % b�;�din9`•. �.. � 0 1 Rear =1/4 ot toial lot � � � � / �', PropoSed Gorage� a 50 /\ not more thon 40 feet 3 1 �-� � � � � i Side=70 house �� .- � o propo Floo�v=819A ` 5 garoge . ,f o �i , � 3 diriveway - ' :_ ��'� � ° .. � BENCHMARK: 1 �. �� Spike in ash �� /� �. eler-879.t3 . � ,"20" s�.' 25.0�. • w? • I hereby ceriify thot this survey 4 n ' 1 -� � C�� f plon, or report was prepared by me \ � �� J/ � or under my dvect supervs'on ona x._1; , � • .. Ihat I om a duly Registered Lond � � � /� . `' � Surveyor under the lows of the ` 1 � � � Stote ol Minnesota � _ � �� 1 `� \ � IJ t nd Surve or � � ' ` .' 11 d , ��.. �� e: �q. No. 143t3 . �1 ' ' - � Uet .to �oP�gB � � i, ", ou , ('� `,\ �d dro� oo°e� 5tceet 55 7!r'�c*y�'� �^S�a1, Y� µe� n,, x8t8.6 dbnoTes�ro�ose�s��7e�� ■ /�+oo� �7q�'�� stotrt` 5e � 0 9�p1 �� ,' meos 9p.0 �VY�.�Vr�� 32O/� Vr ��,1 _ W 4g96 � � O j5•�p" PROPERN DESCRIPTION: �7 `��e 1in� � 5 76' Lob 28 and 27, Block W RIVER denotes existir.q contou- x_ Q � • denotes Iron monument lound �equested By: �„� ; D I' denote5 �rOn p �].B. � Minnesota .o�..tDivision � C morked R.L.S.P�No. 514J4?a � � Butfal0 AW. 66J1 . 6 denotes soil boring Daie: DrOwr. By: Scale: .'hecked By: P�° �"a727 ,;05 ��.. S30GA7E3 Fix: �•�� o a-��.t�5 percolo;ion ��5� h,�� I7/17/g7 �;.R.F. 1"=10' `P' 95207 j fnQtn�a�� and tin0 S�risyo�a, lnC. C��►tif�c��e �►f Surve __ . y ' R ��97-12 �� -� 'lliam Nergard --�. ,��ree-� ��eo1er11ne _ �pov e r.: --. --�-- -.-- --. .-.��,,...-.- - �---� _ _ _ __-� -- - � _. -- - _- .__ - � ex�stin9 ��b 1 J �1 p0 meos k P�� j- � . � �, I E 50. I �N �b325, � I I / � i ' � ' '` � 1 \ � _ - � '� ' `, � � N� 'K �� ; �� / ' � �1 Q N �, . . � � 1 o � ,� , � 6 , � i '� � � � , � � � i � � ' _. i — ', ,— — i-�— -,N� — . ' i i � � � -- — ,5c noo� , i �, � � 4.G0 " 0 5 5� ir . � ' T , 1 9 ` o � - '! ��.6 elev=821.45 � ' I ; I� 1 0 1 . ' p0 . � i � � - 1 �' � � � � " -- _ � � o � � 1� � eaistinq � 1 ° 1 .. � � -. x818.8 house I c° �� £ � ',. i � ezisting � �E � o � i` N� � 1 1 � house I o� I' 1 '_ ( � � v' I c � � �oAi , .1 1 .. � "819.5 � � � � -�- � w,� `. Ist flaar eler-827.91 I u � � P�oposed House � �p.� - m �. 1� � \ � -� 1a. � � proposed first floor elev=E24.5 � ,! � � '.8�5 � r� � . . /I `, � Zt�j ` X`` � Lot=5495 s.f. j �� . � i 1_ �t9.5\�� . � � N li I 1 0� 3 � � '� �, (� � i � . . . l\ a / � � 1 1� � '� � _- � ci 1 , o� ' . , . . . . c•t � .. o ` . �� -- ' m � �_� �� i 9 � 5.6 '. C , ` � � o r,— —'' � ' ��',,e� a5n �j�,, 1`, l .� �. �. `,., � . �. 1 � �� x8�8.3 � \ � `S. � t J.5 !{ - � ` � 1 �- a 5a < 1� - i � ez�sGng garoge '�o �, 1� � � �, `1 �0 �'... _ '� � � Building Setbacks: q '..,1 `� 6. S�bo�K 1ine �� Front-35 �oor elev�879.14 a �. � i � b��td��9� `� � N � 0 < Rear =1/4 of toial lot '� � -`, Pro �oSeG Caro e� o S� \ not more thon 40 feet } �1 -� •� P � 9 �� Side=10 harse ', - � o propoSeA-Floo ev=819.0 5 garoge f�� 1� ' ` - .� / .. �� 3 dirivewoy � � 1 �. 1� � ° .. BENCHF�ARK: � � � ( <� Spike in ash ,; Z�.. s�: � � � elev=879.�3 '. � 1 25p0 ,l I hereby cerlify that this survey, � - , plon, or report was pre0ared by me 4=II1� 1 1` � f�, ` or under my direcl supervioion ond '� ri, - J� � thot I am a duly Registered Lond �' ��- � /� � Survryor unde� the laws of the 1 \� ��\ �+ 1� ` Stote ol Minnesota. • 1' � _ / x \ � 1 1 ` �1 � � Edword J. tto and Surveyor � 1� _' � �,, foPp9ed 1 � � Dote: Reg. No. 1a}4S . 1 �'. ��-. �\e��'to P � � � � � � �,� dro; A�°�� gtre°� ti ��s1o11 Y° We� n, \78.6 denotes proposed spo; Neval�on � 1� � s�o��r 5e � ' 6 meas 5p00 C�O� . B( denotes proposed conto�r W a9•9 9 S 76.35•10" PROPERTY DESCRIPnON: � lota 26 and 27, Block W RIVER �en°e ��e�k, VIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, VAinnesoto denotes existing contour � X._ . occording to the record plat thereof. • denotes iron monument found RequeStCd By: �se : denotes 'ron (7 .�. f Mi n n e s o t a 7�� O pipe set onC p we�t Division morked R.L.S. No. 14}43 � Butf�lo NN„ 6691 9 denotes so�� oor�nq Dote: p�awn y Scole. ,hecked By: P"� �'4727 Job �Jo ! 530pA7ES F�' �� J denaie5 Oercolation tes' hol. �'/.1 i/�7 V` . R. F. I �� - � f1 � ��,�/ ��20 / . i - � EnQtn�� [na LanO 8urveyore, Inc. Line oi � Ce . . r��flcate c�f Surve y VAR ��97-12 ,� William Nergard � N_o _�-� t ee� .� � � e r _�.,�. - _ ��enterllne � D O --- — -- --- — - -- .. y_� _ _-- __� - - - _ .�— _- __ --- - , �1,_ existio9 ��b � os N. P�°t . -- � � � � g0.00 m8 ! , �'u� 1 g� • E �. I� I � N �g'32 , I / � � � 1 _ . -... . = � \ ` f� j ,/�� 1 1 / N',, � w � � � � � ( �� N / i i Q V i„ l I , I � � ,� , �. o , 6 , , `� � � � � � S� i '�' I �� 1 1 , I 1 1 Ti � "'_ "": ,�"�`� �-- N � .... �.._ � I � 3 1� /A� \ Q .�'�.'o � � �,�� ' 1st floor I � 1 '9 \ �4G o 5.5 o /��'•. _"-ti36 elev=821.45 exis ing �truct� es. $ �, � ', oo � ; � s� , ,- i9 1 1 0 11 �-- existrng I " � 1 �. 1 � x878.8 house � 1 � 1 t. i existing ... � '� I � o � �` N`�. . I .-'_' ' � � � � n � � �_.- � �/1 � � �; \ house �I �' � 1 10.Or _�'---�-.� � L X819.5 op- � — �' � ' d'. � y � � � Proposed House �0.� � ' lst floor eler-821.97 I v �. _ ,—' m 1 � ,�� I 11 � `` `1 proposed fir�t floor elev=824.5 � �' � , — ,g, o � 5 � '� �, i 26 �'1 o Lot=5495 s.L �°,� � m . � I 1 o , � 1 819.5 \ °�' � � l� I � �� 1'I 1 � �� / 4; P 1� 1 ' m� Q � / � �_ � 1 � j � / - 1 / ' . r_ l � �.; � �� _ . o � � ' , �.' �- i � 1 i - .__� � � �� / 56 _�•(�� , o / � � ,11 � 0 i \ i , � �.+ ; � . � � � ��18' osh � �' . ` � �'� 876.6 "B�B.3 � \ �, � x/� � � `S, � , �.s�a - 1 — \ s a.50 ) " ._.;i_,--- �� 1 , i 1 �. existing gorage a`�. 1 1 �''�` � 1 \ � Building Setbocks: 9 �,. �I � 1 �` 6 00 ','.�s�bOCµ `�ne � \ ` � . Front�35 floor elev=819.74 ° '; � 1 � b�'�d��9' -,, \, o � Rear =t/4 of toial lot '3 � 11 �_ �� ', PropoSed Garage� $ 5 0 �. not more thon 40 feet ��;� � Side=10 house '� — � o proposeA-Floor elev=819.0 ` 5 garage 1,' ,/ ` o� \ 3 diriveway � % '1'_ � BENCHMARK: �'�` 1 ' � � Spike in ash � � , � elev=819J3 �, ' `�20' s�,� 25.00 </ I hereby ctrtify that this survey, 4•;n \ " � 1 � plon, or report was prepared by me —1� 1 1 ' � � or under my diroct supervision and � x_,,_ t__,. � �- � that I am a duly Registered Land /� �� Surveyor under the lows of the ' � �\ � State of Minnesota � , _ \ � � � �1 � � / �` X �` � \ �1 1 Edward J. Otto and Surveyor � 1,,, } t��`to p�OP°yed \ Date: _�7/� Reg. No. 14343 � ' , — � � �� _ - � �i' � , 1 i� �O �U`l�ee< � Q � � d�O p � 5 x , \ ��1011 ��We� in; o�e \18.6 denotes proposed spol elevation ' qto(�^ � '�,. 5Q pp p�°� � 49 96 meos 8�8\ denotes proposed contour �5�p" W PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: '� 1`�e � S�6 Lote 26 and 27, Block W RIVER �e�ce x VIEW HEIGHTS, Anoko County, Mfnneaota denotes existing contour x_� � according to the rocord plat thereof. • denotes Iron monument found Requested By: e ise : Q denotes iron pip e set ond p.�. f Mi n n e s o t a Y We�t Division 7�� morked R.L.S. No. 14343 BuTfalo AW. 6681 9 denotes soii boring Date: D�a n y: cole: necked By: ��' �'4M7 Job No. 7/17/97 C. R. F. 1"=10' � ��A7E8 ��: °B2.'� G denotes percolation test hole � AGrf07 EnQ1nNn �nd WM 8urv�yoy, Inc. .7JG � 0 _, � _� 0 � _o C o � � J _�� 0 ; � � VAR ��97-12 r- William Nergard i.� ti • o ,�°. "Z ° �T °;z o�-a! ,4-5 o-L ,� � � � u � �� t 0 J ' � J -'9 r o� r � � i� � �-�`�� I I � 1 y�5 u — �� :v� V � 1 � : si I •' X �• Y_ u ti 'o � Ll Y . . .� �'�'S � i� �f �� Zv °i a N � l � y. LL N � F 4 7 Q J X u � �� . � � �� zoz S�� U � N� � � � � .r X :� a - �. u a �w � � I I u � -� 5 Y d� � � �� mLL � . °' � u z Z�z ��o V ^i V ( v = V I � � 4 XV � �� a x t�l � � � u- � � � � v ,n �i �,_ L� . �8.14 �� oZ _, � � � _ 0 � -� � I o � � z � �,�� f��:_ ,�► ; r,�� ► ' ^-� �� 9 Q _i _i r � v � _� r 4 � � � � 1r Y Z �� J W 3 1- <,� Z � °3`-� � 3 _ o +,t �'Mu H `r o zF �N°oC O J u� _, N -� � u� � . � o-�? �� VAR �� 9 7 -12 � William Nergard p ��`7 4_4 c4�c _+�o ^ �c-�o_L��_ 1e�02'2 LHS7 � I � � �e—T d N \ or � 1� i= Ic Y � W %� � l I�' � L i� � >>,� O � x.. � � i x�,i . .9 ix'_• T Io I � _ j I ^ w O o� � � �.�' �� 9 � � � I •1 � ^� I I I „ OS - re�3: I I ' + � . 1 � � ��. : � � ,� 1 �'^--1� �1. � � i a'�:a °1 � �^I 11 �i� �: � 9 � . i � � �Y�� f� , � yi�.p .] I ( + "' s5 - - � I ��!,� �� ;L4j:;J ° ! 1 o � „� i�;� It - � � i _'� fJ . .. y'� °� :� '^ 's � . ��- ` N � .T � I -0 v (� . �� OS�7L S+'� ( I _ � -�..� I _ —_. - � � o-� �-£i c Ni�;l �� 9 a i � . � },._; e- �S _ :.� y i a � _� ..�� t OI_C � j �90Z��J�'�% � .w $ ' � j W � � •.1_ 13!'�'LL'I j�y �i7 _o N L.� ? o �, � =, , � � .z,, ' � ti� - N 2� ! 171d -Z a�.9 �ar�s.z: : _ r r -LL� � " .F - � n , i �/ _J � . L � � �) ; _, ,1 $ I [ . , p N V � ti L b � r. `:—e .'� o -Z't �rq o ��C � ? � u� ..!� ito:-i Li+� W 'Y� � y �� /� .1� �• � �Q��V7. � / � 9 I 'L -D s3ssn�. � 002) �� l r- � o ' - -�y � - �. ; 7N Lid wZ � S7'i m � ti � :.� C � N . . w � �.,, � � s L p ' 1 � V �-�-.� .1+stiJ v � ; i4aZ 11�+5? � < m -� � '`�.n � �. �+ � � _ � � mn I 19r� �41� r =a 0 0 � 0 r 0 1 0 0 J N � v 0 �4;z' ur;£ u° �� 1 �$ � ,�{ � 9 �?'�9 , � ( � S�� _ � ? � � su � �� < - ^' � c s ?� � '� ,� � � ¢ � _ � � LL� l� ul � � V ?� ` � �n r 5 � , �► : ��.� �� s * � ' � � s� v J _— o�� 7 0.,�eZ d �3sSrTdL �ar'd � 18.15 0 oz n � O 0 N \ O � i °� Z � ,�.. �-z � �ua�Z r 3y� � 3� ��Z Z? -� � W � �% 0 � rJ � � `z � t�i 7 ! N � � � � � � N � �ri ap �S iN F .2wmi6O�� • -VVONO »�2 'J1�2�2 NYNO msni.00+iG��+ •.auaz F z�1°o'�iau�� iV�NSms. aCia. :aczmc:oom <o=_tz z `sxou��z..so �V,om°uia� ¢.,d22h .aG�O matou�sr �. � o.��`+-.sis sof°<=�":f`�`. bt).mdi.iO00�0 oms o. s �. r �. ..�... »u �assxa...+�p{ tlMY�~222r =s��[i2+141iG ,.s�.tOOnNs • � � VI Z e �` � � OL y, � � �� ZY � �� 8 �; �, � ��. u^? T �7 �NZ � � 1 Y(�jQ Q � � � � � � �, Z�t7 ��X �,z � �� .r '� t � �_ �OF- � �� 1 � V � � � \l 7J � � v � � � �� 4ti Q� �� I i�� ( � W J .�14 b � �'� 0� � �� 18.16 � w � � •VAR ��97-12 William Nergard 32d.0 �� +� )� 0 1 ie,c c Y� � r `�`' 9�� d Vl I � � J � .,��3� = W�p v� J � 0�� J �-o� rO � Z . �� J � g �Q,�? �Z V �Z �S �� $ �uE� � g � ��.� iwx�. °L- 0 y-u- �i ° .a�a� � N �� " � Z W Q �� J Z W �JO 1LQ � _ �� 0 � � � Phonc: ( 61 � ) -�97--�.ti(?� Fa.�SCimile: ( 61 N ) �97-,3.tit?U �OD �. D'AIGI,�� ATTORNEY AT LA.W Suite ti02 14510 - 45th Street North East Rogers, �Iinnesota 55374 REASUNS FOR VARIANCE 650 DOVER STREET rldmittcd In: Jlinn�;ota R'iticonsin Illinois This variance requests regards lots 2b & 27 Btock W of River View H�ights in Fridley Minnesota, hereinafter "the �roperty". Platted in 1922, the property consists of 21ots with dimensians of 25 feet wide by 110 feet deep. The current zonin� of the property is residential. Hawever, under eurrent code regulations, it is impossible to build any form of residential dwelling on the lots without violating almost all of Fridley's R-1 code regulations. In an effort to meet as many of the current codes as possible, petitioner is proposin� the following building plan. First, the tots will have to be joined into one lot in order to make any building feasible. With a lot size of 25' by 110' and side yard setbacks of 10' no useful structure could be erected with the remaining five feet. However, by joinin� the two lots together the side yard set backs could be met. Lot Si7e Second, a variance will be required from the current code's minimum lot size. By joining the twa lots together petitioner can obtain 5500 square feet for the lot size. The cunem minimum lot square footage is 7500 square feet. Because there are e�sting homes on each side of the property, there is no way to obtain additional land to increase the size of the property to meet the minimum lot square footage. Without a variance, the property is useless and can not be built on under the current R-1 Zvning. Lflt Cove�rage Area_ Third, a varianoe is required from the regutation that no more than 25% of the lot can be covered by the main building and a11 accessory buildings. As discussed above, the cune�nt code requires a 7500 square foot lot. Twenty five percent af this area is 1875 square feet of buildable area. Twenty fi�e percent of the cunent property is only 1375 sqi�are feet (25% x 5500 sq. ft). However, due to the front yard, side yard a�d driveway set backs this amount is reduced to an area of 1282.5 square feet (27' x 47.5') for both the house and gara,ge. Due to the size of the lot petitioners are unable to build a functional home by using only 25% af the lot. Petitioners would prefer to build a smaller home with a basement where they could put utility, laundry, and storage rooms. However, eity codes follow FEMA standards which do not allow basements in this area. In order to meet the city's codes under FEMA, all laundry, utility, and storage rooms will have to be moved to ttie first floor. By moving all of these raoms from the basement to th� first floor, the normal living space for petitioners will decrease drastically. In addition, the city's off street parking or garage requirements further reduce the amount of space available for the main dwelling. The amount of area left is insufficient to construct the main building and have that home be functionable for residential purposes. In order to make the property usable for a residence petitioners request that the city 18.17 � • increase the percenta�e of property that can be covered by the main building and gazage. The current plan calls for a house and garage covering a combined area of 1856 squaze feet. The current plan's total area is under the 1815 square foot requirerr�ent for other lots. Front and Rear Ya� Setback A variance for front and rear yard set backs will be required. As discussed above, in order to make any functional use of the property a larger building area is needed. The larger building area will require the adjustment of the front and rear set back lines. The peritioner would like to pasition the home as close to the street as possible. Both homes on either side of the property are at setbacks less than 11 feet and 32 feet which are under the 35 foot code requirements. Petitioner is requesting that the main dwelling be put at the mid point between the two adjacent homes, ar closer to the street. The mid point line would be approxirnately at a 2fl foot setback Iine or 2'1.5 feet from the edge of the road. The petitioner would like to have the building located as close as possible to the street in order to leave as much room as possible for the rear set back line. The rear of the property is the lowest area on the lot and has a larger than 3" diameter tree. In order to meet the city's code on tree removal and preserve the tree, petitioner would like to keep the building area as close to the from yard as possible. In addition, moving the building as close to the street as possible will also allow the petitioners to keep the house off the lowest area on the lot. The purpose of keeping the house away from this area is so that water will not be drained onto the adjoining landowners property. With a 20 foot front yard setback a 14 foot rear yard set back could be accomplished giving a total of 27.5 feet setback from the road and a 14 feet set back from the rear lot line. Re�uest for Variance The above variances are requested because strict enforcement af the cities code will cause an undue hardship upon the landowners and it will not change the intent of the ordinances. Without the above variances the landowner can not make a reasonable use of the property. The city has plated this property in its current dimensions. Over time the city's codes have changed to such an e�ctent that the property can no longer be used for any purpose without getting a variance from the city. The primary reason for the variances is that the lot size requirements have changed dramatically. All of the variances requested are due to the sma11 size of the lot. The landoumer has done nothing to cause the need for the above variances. In addition, the majority of homes in the area are not in cornpliance with the current setback or square foot�ge requirements. Therefore, by granting petitioners' variances wiil not change the condition of the neighborhood. In addition, granting of the variances will keep with the intent of the current ordinances. The lot size requirements have gone up in order to provide for larger fature plated lots in the city. However, this lot was plated when the requirements of the city were much smaller. Granting the variance on lot size will not chan�e the future development of the city. The required lot size of future lots will still be controlled. In addition, granting the lot size varianee will allow the city to prevent its current ordinances from taking away the landowner's only available use of the property. The setback variance requests will also continue to keep with the intent of the ordinances. Petitianer has met as many of the set back requirements as possible. The only set back . ._ s • • Phone: (612) 497-4747 Fax: (612) 497-3800 Main Dwelling: . . . . of Minnesota Inc. 14510-45th Street NE Suite 202 Rogers, MN 55374 DES�RIPTION OF MATERIAL5 654 Dover Street The main dwelling will be constructed with cement blocks up to the bottom plate of the first floor. The Blocks shall be waterpr00%d with polywall. The remainder of the home will be of wood construction of sufficient type and character to meet current building code specifications. The fire place, if any will be a zero cleaxance fireplace with brick front. The kitchen will have custom cabinets. The e�erior of the home will be constructed with a cedar front, brick wainscot on the front of the home, and vinyl siding. The windows will be a combination of maintenance free tilt out double hung windows and maintenance free stationary windows. The roof shall be covered with standard asphalt shin�les. The driveway shall be rolled asphalt. The side walks will be poured concrete. The steps and landing to the main entry will be concrete and covered by the roof. Garage: Minn Usc. # 4562 The gaxage will be attached and accessible to the home by stairs entering into the laundry room. The garage will be constructed with wood framing, asphalt shingle roof, vinyl siding and a poured concrete floor. 2-10 18.19 �=��' L.=1 � � ' .� • . Phone: (612) 497-4747 Fctx: (612) 497-3800 � � � � of Minnesota Inc. 14510-45th Street NE Suite 202 Rogers, MN 55374 PRUP4SED BUILDING PLANS 650 DOVER STREET Upon approval of the variance requests petitioners will contact the builder and obtain a building permit to start construction on the property. The main building will be approximately 56' by 26'. The garage will be 20' by 20' or 20' x 25' if allowed by the city. The house will be constructed out of cement block which will be waterproofed with poly wa11 up to the first floor wood joists to be placed at an elevation sufficient to meet the FEMA first floor standard of 824.5 feet. The remainder of the home will be constructed out of wood of sufficient size, grade, and quality to meet current building codes. The exterior finish will be maintenance free vinyl or aluminum siding except for the front of the home. Windows will be maintenance free vinyl or aluminum clad windows. The front of the home will be finished with a wainscot of brick and cedar siding. See attached plan for interiar specifications. The house will be built to keep in mind the characteristics of the lot. The home will be constructed as far forward on the lot as possible, to keep the house in line with other homes in the neighbarhaod, to prevent any trees from havin� to be cut and to prevent water from draining onto adjoining properties. Also, the garage will be put in the back of the house in order to keep the new building as far away from other buildin�s as possible. Because a garage set back is 5 feet from the property line instead of 10 feet, petitioners have designed this house to offset the garage from the house so it can be cioser to the East property line. This will a11aw the buildings to be as far as possible from the nearest adjacent building which is the garage located near the west rear praperty line. In addition, the sharing of a driveway between the two adjoining lot owners will be pursued in order to decrease the amount of driveway needed %r both homeowners. Minn Lisc. # 4562 2-�0 18.20 $u��°� 1=1 � U . City of Fridley Community Development Department HOUSING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1997 TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director � Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator � Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant � FROM: Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Margaret Metzdorff, Remodeling Advisor SUBJECT: Dover St. Properties This is to respond to your inquiry regarding the house at 540 Dover St. and the adjacent vacant lot as potential candidates for acquisition and redevelopment under the HRA's Scattered Site Acquisition/Housing Replacement Program. Under Section 1.4 of the HRA's Housing Replacement District Plan, properties eligible for inclusion in the district must be either 1) a vacant site (1ot►; or 2) contain a vacant house; or 3) contain a house which is structurally substandard pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.174 Subd. 10. A property is considered substandard if the cost to repair the structure exceeds 15 % of its value. In practice, most of the sites purchased so far have required significantly more rehabilitation (i.e. over 50%) than is feasible to invest in the property. In otherwords, the program really focuses on sites which are severely deteriorated and unattractive for private investment.. # • . � .� . � . . ._,� It doesn't appear that the Dover St. parcels are good candidates for the following reasons: 1) The existing single family home is in fairly good condition and appears to have recently undergone remodeling. It is doubtful that the site would meet the 15% threshold. 2) It seems that the private market is already accomplishing what the HRA would try to do anyway. In this case, both properties are privately owned and do not ;�,,,•.��: require public subsidies for redevelopment. In addition, it is unlikely that the owners ' would want to sell making the project extremely expensive. We hope this information is helpful. Please !et us know if you need any additional information. 18.21 / � � � � �.. �„ ; D �,%�� .,� y%%��j C��2 C� i/�1� i _.� `�,�% C-�� « �/Jcz ��" � �`� 1��= r� , < i'.2,�a >�L �t�I , � P � �C�.,,.p c.� ro �`z'� d � �!1�-1 � , f e ' `�G ��=�-c.�'� cn-� � ,�. ��.� 5-�r��7 - i`1��•eJ �t. . ' C�`Yi l� �r� c'� : �r� �i�l� Gt� �� . � — cl' %�r��'-�Ze'� . � ,. � , � �_ �. �...� � � �i�� z.-� �x �-�� 1 r�� .�z�m �� ti�� e�� u-% l p a,�-e �� S� r�,� � �� r�. �t.�-� �l, , �� ` ��c � ,� // �C' �..:�? �� = t--� � f�-d % .P�10 C� 5 � 5 . . �� rc2n-n � bc� /�/. �n-, �`-�u-, Gt'> 7�-- �zr► � r�r�/ G�'1 L`�I C�-%� �`t� �. % � j�'�r ,� L�/Yl'1� ' f�/,�,.,�� %z��<� � _ �, �� 1$.22 � � . i f�,. l ��. f� J� '� ._..— �� ' r, � �� t i � � � ` ( �� o r/� _ �: � ..-�-, : ,- � �� v � � ,;,� � � � ,��t, 1�--� � , II��..- � � �'�- � � � � ; ��- � � � � � � -�-. . E-�� L�c � � � , - .� �� L�,� �� ti ` � � ��..�:.�� -�- . � : . 2 �� . ,� � � �� , � -= i�� ' �� ) 18.23 _ -'j �� 'P� � �. `�,�', 7°„� 2l� .� �� 2 � .� -a-� . I� C��-�.�.-�� r� �� . T��- -� � . s � � -7 � �� . �� V . � , � � � `� � � _ �� ` fi� , � � � �-�- �.�.�-�- �- �. � - � � � `� - �, �� ` � � �� 18.24 � / ,S � � � � �� - �� .� , ../�` C�-�'�-- /�1�� '"1 c,�.'��-1. c .�-�►'1�:e`� `-'(,l,�L�� `�.-,.� ;-�, 1 �%� ,� C 1 �� ;1-�-��r�.��C� it-,�•� L�'1 G��l`-�`�- ,�!��'� � C�--L �-' , ` � . L� �si � `� ��'�-'�' - � r�� ` 18.25 VAR i197-]2 • • ldilliam Nergard '� �� Parcels betw�een 5,000 and 6,000 square feet 18.26 � `�-�-�"� � � �� L� I_ I � � �' I � � , i � I � � �i� , � � J <�-_ . �. _ .—, i �. _J �- I ' � , �; � � � s� Sr - _ _ � � F- � � � - ��._ ..�'�z � � � �� . � ' _ _ _ ,� _-� � �� I�_ �_�'r-� �� VAR t?97� 12 William Nergard I � �� Parcels betw�een 5,000 and 6,000 square feet Hyde Park 18.27 I �`— — — i • �� . .. . . . -�� I I �— �—i � � I _. _ J �� - — � - - —�— � r. ..-i . � I� � i I V--�� — � -II- i Ir - � _ j� � � . _ . _ I�-1 _:�_ ! _i�'-� _ .I-� �� _ �� _j�� F_I-I � __I� � � �— ' I� � � F- 1� ��r - I ��I � i u � �' � � i_ii-- i � - �� _ �� i I - I C�� 1- -�r ��I _ r � � � _ i I�AR ak97-12 12i11iam Nergard � i ; � Parcels betw�een 5,000 and 6,000 square feet Plymouth Acldition 18.28 • ` .` � Vacant Properties Riverview Heights Between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet i �� ,, \ �\ ,4 I\, ��en�"" , � . , _� � � - � � , �s�� - ` , '` � , � . �� - ' � �•, %', �� 1' \� F�� `� �_ y �' � , �;�5�"� _ v �,�� -i R-1 -OreFamtyUriits [] R-2 - THO Famty Urrts - � R-3 - l'�r�eral Mltide Urrls �—� R-4 - M�bile I-brte Parks � �-�� s, - M'� �k Na¢t«hood ; � sz - w�o�rex as�a - G1 - Lad �smss - � G2 -�� ss � G3 - C',aeral Sn�p�g � GR1 - Cricval Office i — r�i - �qw i��a =n�z -�+yi�ai L� tv}3 - Qtdoor Irtensive Fleary Ind. - RR - F�ilroa� .. p - Rblic Fadilies V�[nTFR ; PocHr�-ounv � �, � � / t �\ � � �y y � � � \ � � \� 4� �\ 4- ' \ ��', ,, ��` ' \o\ � `�� `� , , � � ' , "" , � ', .- � 55 � , � �' ` Fa� �l-, �►� �i � r `, � �� , ; � � � - l�� -� , ��i— r — — _ �� I I � � A � �� /�� /`\ . i . _ — ___. . Sj� � _I I J/ R � \ I � �� , � �� '�-- �� ue�nsrr� — �- - - " ';� Y / .. - ' �'\ \,:� :',�� -� �� , � z,�,,,,, '�, i�-��i - - � �, � -�- LONGFE110✓V ST NE _ .. . ., n �_: -- \ '�, � � � �I �/� �'� �.�� \ �� ' �� '. ��, �! I �� ' _ _' L _ _Al � i �� .. . �� _ ! _ � � �' �• � i � -"i 79NNYNE ��I � . . �� - _,� __— ��i P � �� o ��. VAR #97-12, 650 Dover Street This request, by William and Wendy Nergard, has several variance for lot area, lot coverage, and reductions in front and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a new dweling. - - - - i / \ � A 71e6'97 � c«r�ied a,a a�, n«„ a� ��d «, o�� rb. �o �a z�� n� �rr�n� date 127/56 together witli all arrendrg orcirr , ances adopted a,a efrecme as or vnKJ�. The City of Fridey has taken e�ery effat to pro- I Hde the most u�todate inforrre6m available. I i The data presented here is suhjed to change. The Gty of Fridley will not be resporuible fa I , �,�a��rtnsa�,�. i � • CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 13, 1997 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Kuechle called the August 13, 1997, Appeals Commission mi� to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Carol Beaulieu, Terrie Members Absent: Ken Vos Others Present: Michefe McPherson, Plannin ssistant Scott Hickok, Planning C dinator William & Wendy Ner d, 7760 Central Ave, Spring Lake Park Mary King, 375 - 67 Avenue David Padilla, 67 over Street Qon & Leann �dars�� , 62^v �aver Street Monte &' elle Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace Dale Di son, 600 Ely Street Rod Aigle, 1450 45th Street, Rogers, MN MOTION b�. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to approve the July 9, 1997, Appeals Commissi mmutes as written. U�A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #97 12 BY WENDY & WILLIAM NERGARD• Per Section 205.07.03.A.(2) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the lot area from 7,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet; Per Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the lot coverage from 25% (1,375 square feet to 32% (1,760.92 square feet); Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 17.5 feet; Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 feet to 17.5 feet; 18.29 • To allow the construction of a new single family dwelling with attached garage on Lots 26 and 27, Block W, Riverview Heights, the same being 650 Dover Street. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners, Wendy and Wi1{iam Nergard, are requesting that four variances be granted to 650 Dover Street to allow construction of a single family dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated the City has previously granted similar variances for reductions in the #ront and rear yard setbacks and the increase in lot coverage. This City has not, however, granted a lot area variance to 5,500 sq. ft. There are developments on similar-sized lots in the neighborhood. Similar requests to allow construction of dwellings on 40 foot wide lots as opposed to the subject property's 50 foot width have ��c�� uenied. ii i�e iot area variance is denied, there is no viabie use oT ine property except to sell it to either of the adjacent properties. Ms. McPherson stated the subject property measures 50 ft. by 110 ft. for a total lot area of 5,500 sq. ft. The property is vacant and zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling. The property is also located in a flood plain and is required to meet the Federal Emergency Management Area flood plain standards for construction. This requires the first floor elevation to be at 824.5 and to be property floodproofed. The petitioner is proposing to elevate the structure on an extended foundation and not on fill. Ms. McPherson stated the first item for consideration is the lot area variance. The property is 2,000 sq. ft. less than the minimum required. There are many similar sized properties in the Riverview Heights area which have been developed. If the City denies the lot area variance, the remaining economic alternative for the property owner is to sell the property to either one or both of the adjacent properties. The property owner indicated that when asked previously, the adjacent owners were not interested in buying the property. The City has not previously granted a variance of this nature. This is a 50-foot lot. All variance requests to allow construction on 40 foot lots have been denied. Ms. McPherson stated the second request is the lot coverage variance. Code allows 25% of a lot to be covered by structures. If this dwelling was proposed for the minimum 9,000 sq. ft. lot, it would not exceed the maximum 25% lot coverage. In addition, in comparing a 7,500 sq. ft. lot, the proposal would also be within 25%. The petitioners are proposing a 1,282 sq. foot dwelling and attached garage. 18.30 � Ms. McPherson stated the third request is the front yard setback. The petitioners have requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 22 ft. The dwellings on either side do not meet the front yard setback requirement; 10.9 ft to the west and 31.1 ft to the east. The setback of the proposed structure is sensitive to the site lines of adjacent structures. The City has previously granted a front yard variance request to 8 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the fourth request is for a reduction in rear yard setback. The petitioners are requesting a 10 foot reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 27.5 to 17.5 feet and affects the attached garage. The petitioners could construct a detached garage which could be located 3 feet from side and rear lot lines. The proposed garage will be 63 feet and 24 feet from adjacent structures Similar variances have been granted in the past. Ms. McPherson stated flood ptain requirements are necessary because the s�bject property is located within the flood plain of the Mississippi River. The Federa� Emergency Management Agency's flood plain requirements require the first floor elevation to be located at 824.5 feet or higher. The structure will be elevated on masonry block as opposed to fill. The petitioners will need to address the aesthetic �mpa;,# �� th� block prior to the buifding peririt a��ati�n. A�i zi�vatian cEtificate is also required. The City typically requires a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages and liability should the dwelling be affected by flooding. Ms. McPherson stated that the site and house designs are appropriate to the lot. The side yard setbacks are met. The design of the house minimizes encroachment on adjacent properties. The front elevation of the house, with three roof lines, also adds interest and variety to the streetscape. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Appeals Commission approve a reduction in the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. and an increase in the lot coverage from 25% to 32%, with the fo((owing stipulations: 1. No fu�ther expansion of the structures, principal or accessory, shall occur on this lot. 2. No fu�ther enclosures such as a 7-foot privacy fence or a densely planted hedge sha11 be installed. An open work fence such as a standard 48-inch picket or chain link is acceptable. Ms. McPherson stated that as the variances for the front and rear yard setbacks are within previously granted requests, staff has no recommendation regarding these variances. If the Appeals Commission approves the variance request to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks, staff recommends the following stipulations as condition of approvaL• 3. The dwefling and accessory structure shall be floodproofed in accordance with national standards for floodproofing. 18.31 � 4. The first floor elevation of habitable space shall be at 824.5 feet. 5. The petitioners shall submit a verifying sunrey verifying the first floor elevation 6. A plan to minimize the aesthetic impact of the floodproofing shall be submitted and approved by staff, including architectural (brick siding, etc.) and landscape improvements. 7. The petitioners shall install a hard surface driveway by October 1, 1998. 8. The petitioners shall provide a sho�t term solution to the catch basin to be installed in the southwest corner of the property. 9. The petitioner shall execute a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the �ity from damages and liability should the dwelling be affected by flooding. Mr. Kuechle requested clarification on the catch basin. Ms. McPherson stated that water drains into the southwest corner of the property. The catch basin will maintain existing drainage patterns, due to increase water run-off from hard surface. Public Works has the area scheduled for storm sewer and street improvements for 1999. Ms. Beaulieu asked if there are other 50 foot lots in the city. Ms. McPherson provided a map of properties. There are 100 properties in the Riverview Heights neighbofiood that are between 5,000 and 6,000 sq. ft. Mr. Kuechle asked if the adjacent property owners are the same property owners as this lot? Ms. McPherson stated, no. Ms. Nergard addressed the Appeals Commission and stated the repo�t included all of their requests. They are petitioning prior to purchasing the property. Mr. Kuech(e inquired if there is anyone who would iike to speak on behalf of the request. Michael LaFave, 640 Dover Street, asked how high will the elevation be prior to first floor of house and what is the total height of the structure? Ms. Mc Pherson stated the elevation at 819 feet on the west, and 818 feet on the east. There will be an approximate 6 feet of elevation difference between ground and first 18.32 � floor. The tallest ridge height of the home is 22 feet from the bottom block to the ridge height. Mr. LaFave explained the front setback was also a concern as all the houses to the east have the same setback. He also owns the lot east of his home. When he purchased the property, he was told it was not possible to build on the land. This lot presently collects a lot of water. Also, if this house were built, it will affect his view and the aesthetics of the entire neighborhood. Therefore, Mr. LaFave recommends the house be set back further. The garage appears to be located 3 feet from the LaFave's property. Mr. LaFave requested clarification if his hedge will be allowed to remain. Ms. McPherson stated, yes, as proposed, the garage will be 5 feet from his property. Ms. Michelle Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated she is not personally affecte�� by the construction but wants to look at the overall view of the neighborhood. There are other small lots in the area. If this variance is granted, what else will happen? Basically, the other houses are old homes and it seems the City buys the older homes to split the lot with the adjacent home owners. She questioned the 31 % previously granted. Was this on a lot that was 5,000 feet or was this already a 7,000 feet lot? Her other concern v�ras the addiiionai water runofifi. 5he noted the architecturai styie ofi the home is sensitive to the area, but is it a sensitive move to put a la�ge house in a small green area? She acknowledged the transition of this neighborhood and recommended that the Appeals Commission deny the request. Mr. Padilla, 670 Dover, stated he is currently in the process of selling his house. He did not want to see any type of development right now. The Nergards want to connect into his existing driveway and, at this time, he is not interested in discussing the issue. Mr. Maher, 7965 Rivenriew Terrace, stated he lives behind the property in question. He presented petitions from residents not able to attend this evening and explained that other neighbors in the area are attempting to purchase empty lots in an effort to create an adequate sized lot or yard. He understands why the Nergards want to move into the area but does not think the 5,500 sq. ft. lot is sufficient for the proposed single family dwelling. He believed the sewer and water problems are at maximum capacity in the area right now and recommended that the City leave this area alone or work to encourage the existing property owners to increase their lot sizes. He inquired about the minimum lot size requirement. - Ms. McPherson stated that for new subdivisions, the minimum size is 9,000 ft., and in existing subdivisions, it is 7,500 square feet. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu to receive letters from Ms. Patricia Kohl's, Mr. Robert Kohl, Ms. Kimberly Hudyma, Mr. Dwight Just and Gary & Christi Boots. 18.33 • UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Dale Dixon, 600 Ely Street, stated he would like to address the traffic pattern of the 6 block area. The roads are quite narrow and traffic is bad. With additional houses, this problem will continue to increase. If this variance is approved, there will be many similar requests to develop additional small properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon reported that many of these smaller tots went into forfeiture because they were unable to build on these prope�ties and that would be unfair to grant the variance. He urged the City to abide by the existing rules. Mr. Rod D'Aigle stated he is at the meeting on behalf of his parents, the current property owners, and the petitioners. Mr. D'Aigle put together the petition and suggested the Commission direct any questions to him. He asked what the owners of these small lots will do with them if they are unable to develop. The proposed plans inciude the insiaiiaiion ofi a catch basin to address water drainage, and sensitivity to site lines have also been acknowledged. The property has been for sale for 4 years, and they have not been able to sell it. The original price of the lot was $15,000 and the owner has come down to $10,000. If someone is interested in buying the property and is wiliing to incorporate aii the requirements into their house plan, what more can be done to make this property usable? T�he land owner has no other option. Ms. Beaulieu inquired if there has ever been a structure on this property. Mr D'Aigle stated, to his knowledge, no. Ms. Beaulieu inquired how long Mr. D'Aigle's parents have owned the lot and what were the building codes at that time? Mr. D'Aigle stated he did not know. Mr. Maher stated the adjacent property sold for $6,000. This property owner is asking too much for the property. Someone would buy the property for a decent price. Mr. LaFave reported that he purchased the lot to the east of his home as tax forfeited land and was aware that he could not build on the property. He believed the D'Aigle's land was also purchased as tax forfeited land. Ms. Beaulieu requested clarification as to why staff recommends approving the first finro variances? Mr. Hickok reported the taking is not a concern. The concern is the fact it needs to be floodproofed and no basement means all utilities must be on one level. This is a one level house with a larger footprint on one level, thus pushing it back and forward on the lot. The lot width and side setbacks are adequate. 18.34 • Ms. Beaulieu inquired if staff is anticipating receiving further cases. Mr. Hickok replied that each case would be reviewed per the physical characteristics of the site to determine if it is appropriate. Mr. Maher asked why the Planning Commission worked so closely to help with the development of this proposal and further suggested the City contact neighbors of tax foreclosure property located near them for purchase. Mr. Hickok stated there is an interest in furthering the character of the neighborhood and encouraging neighborhoods to clean up properties. They don't want them to assume that when a house reaches a certain point, the City will come in and buy it to divide up the land. It is not possibie. The character of the neighborhood is wonderful. Some homes are being purchased and redevelopment is appropriate. Mr. Kuechle clarified that if a person buys a property, that person has a legitimate right to develop it. There is not a lot the City can do or say about the use of that property. The City needs to make some adjustments to make it usable rather than to deny variances resulting in a worse situation. The goal is to make the best possible development. Smaii properties do came with probiems and other property owners cannot tell another property owner what they can do with their land or tell them who to sell it to. Mr. Anderson stated that by allowing variances, the City is setting a precedent. The lot is not a buildable property, and the City has never granted permission before and shouldn't now. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. Mau asked how will this area will be affected in the process of widening roads in the area? Will the City widen the street when installing curb & gutte�'? Mr. Hickok repo►ted the standard of the roadway is not comparable to other areas. Standard storm sewer, asphalt and gutter are being evaluated along with the right-of- way width. If the road was widened, it will not be significantly modified. Ms. Mau stated this is a very narrow !ot in which the house could take on the look of a trailer sitting on the lot. Even though the width is fine, she is very sensitive to the fact that the structure will block the site line to the river. The elevation difference between this house and others also concerns her. She acknowledged that the property owner will have difficufty selling the property but is unable to vote in favor of this variance request. 18.35 • Ms. Beaulieu stated that with so many neighbors opposed #o the plan, it would be difficult to support the variance request. She is interested in knowing when the property owners purchased the property. Mr. Kuechle did not concur with fellow Commission members. The property owner has a right to develop the property and this is a reasonable development plan. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to deny variance request, VAR #97- 12, by Wendy & William Nergard to aAow the construction of a new single family dwelling with attached garage on Lots 26 and 27, Block W, Riverview Heights, the same being 650 Dover Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. IVIr. Kuechle stated that because of the two objections and the objections of the neighbors, the request will go to the City Council on Monday, August 25th. 2. BY IVIARY KiNG: Per Section 205.07,03.d.�3 {al of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce #h� rear yard setback from 33.75 fee to 19 feet to allow the construction of a new attached double car garage o Lot 5, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 3, the same being 375 - 67th Avenu MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded b�Ms. Mau, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public he ring. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY , CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLI HEARING OPEN AT 7:42 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner, Mary Ki , is requesting is to reduce the rear yard setback from 33.75 feet to 19 feet to allow con truction of a 26 ft. by 26 ft. attached two- car garage. The property is located at the inter ction of 4th Street and 67th Ave. The structure was constructed prior to 1965 and rece ed damage due to a tornado. Ms. McPherson stated Code Section 205.07.03.D. ).(a) defines the shortest of two street frontages on a corner lot as the front yard. T erefore, in this request, 4th Street wouid be defined as the front yard and the east prop rty line would be the rear yard. The house faces 67th Avenue which is the side corne lot line. The area of the proposed expansion functions as a side yard rather th a rear yard. If the variance was granted, there would be 29 sq. ft. of separation between the proposed garage and adjacent dwelling. 18.36 18.37 � CHECK LIST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • Item indexed correctly? � �/ Has staff visited the site? What is the issue? � rv huc�w � How is the issue to be i.�*z rU es�- ��r resolved? 4 i "` - �,N"�"`' �- ✓�� Was the petitioner's r,g p�,�e .�o� hardship clearly stated? � � Was there a site history researched and � �l � �� attached? �, �. ��l D Was an aerial photo ,� � attached? � Whai is the Appeals ��-LS �t�� Commission/ City Council �^'�'� action requested '�� Are the stipulations clear? l- Were all stipulations modified by the L�� Commission changed by — staff? Are the attachments complete and easy to � read? (site plan, l� .�`�" landscape plan, �,� � � directional indicators, etc.) V"' Is a resolution or , ordinance required? No ___. Is the cover sheet clear'? �� Are all pertinent minutes attached � PREPARED BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY PIANNIN STAFF-AUGUST 7, 1997 � FRiDLEY CITY COUN�, MF.F,TiNG OF AUGUS 17. 1998 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA: Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, reported that the le n conformance with the above mentioned budget requires the City to certify its propose ax levy to the County by September 15, 1997. The 1998 proposed tax levy of $4,010,5 represents an increase of $118,958 over the 1997 certified levy resulting in a 3 percent ' crease in the tax levy. Staff recommends approval of the proposed tax levy requirements. . MOTION by Counc' an Schneider to approve resolution Certifying Proposed Tax Levy requirements for 98 to the County of Anoka. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 65-1997. 18. VARiANCE REOUEST, VAR #97-12, BY W[LLiAM AND WENDY NERGARD TO REDUCE THE REQUrRED LOT SIZE FROM 7,500 TO 5,500 SQUARE FEET; TO INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE FROM 25 PERCENT TO 32 PERCENT: TO DECREASE THE F�4NT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 22 FEET; AND TO REDUCE T.I3E REAR-Y��I�D >S�+ �'BAGK -FROM 27.5_FEET TO 17.5 .FEET. ALL IN ORDER TO BUILD A NEW SINGLE FAMILY AOME AT 650 DOVER STREET N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok presented Variance Request #97-12 at 650 Dover Street for four variance: (1) to reduce the required minimum lot areafrom 7,5QO square feet to S,SOQ square feet; (2) to increase the maximum lof coverage from 25 percent to 32 percent; (3) to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 22 feet; and (4) to reduce the rear yard setback from 27.5 feet to 17.5 feet. Mr. Hickok stated that a single family home is proposed. The property is located 211 feet from Riverview Terrace on Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1 Singte Family Residential. A video tape of the property and sunounding areas to give a sense of the neighborhood. There was a variance of similar nature at 537 Fairmont Street for a lot variance from 7,500 feet to 5,500 feet as well as a•front lot setback to 26 feet resulting in a lot coverage of 34 percent_ This property measures 50 feet by 110 feet and is vacant. There are 106 residential lots between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet in Riverview Heights of which 96 have structures in place. The first item for consideration is the lot area variance. The property is 2,000 square feet less than the minimum required. There are many similar sized properties in the Riverview Heights area which have been developed. If the City denies the lot area variance, the only remaining economic alternative for the property owner is to sell the property to either one or both of the adjacent properties. The property owner previously indicated that the adjacent owners were not interested in buying the property. The City has not previously granted a variance of this nature. This is a 50-foot lot. All variance requests to allow construction on 40 foot .lots have been denied. � RiDLEY CiTY COUI�� MEET�NG OF AUGUST 25, 199'�� __ PAGE 12 The second request is the (ot coverage variance. Code allows that 25 percent of a lot to be covered by structures. The petitioners are proposing a 1,282 square foot dwelling and an attached garage increasing the lot coverage to 32 percent. The third request is the front yard setback. The petitioners have requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 22 feet. The dwellings on either side do not meet the setback requirement with the measurements being 10.9 feet to the west and 31.1 feet to the east. The setback of the proposed structure is sensitive to the sight lines of adjacent structures. The City has previously granted a front yard variance request to 8 feet. The fourth reyuest is for a reduction in rear yard setback. The petitioners are requesting a 10 foot reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 27.5 feet to 17.5 feet which also affects the attached garage. The petitioners could construct a detached garage which could be located 3 feet from the side and rear lot lines. The proposed garage will be 63 feet and 24 feet from adjacent �t:�.:ctures. Similar variances have been granted in the past. Flood plain requirements are necessary .because the property is located within the flood plain, of the Mississippi River. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood plain requirements _require the f rst floor eleva±ion �e located at 824.5 feet or higher: The structur� will �e elevated on masonry block as oppased to fill. The petitioners will need to address the aesthetic impact of the biock prior to the buitding permit application. An elevatior� certificate is also required. The City typically requires a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages ar►d li�bility should the dwelling be affected by flooding. Staff felt that the site and house design is appropriate to the lot. The side yard setbacks are met. The design of the house minimizes encroachment on adjacent properties and adds interest to the streetscape. Staff recommends that Council approve the reduction in minimum lot area from 7,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet and an increase in the lot coverage from 25 percent to 32 percent that include the following stipulations: (t) No further expansion of the structures, principal or accessory, shall occur on this lot; (2) No further enclosures such as a 7-foot privacy, fence or a densely planted hedge shall be installed. An open work fer�ce such as a standard 48- inch picket or chain link is acceptable. If Council .approves the variance request to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks, staff recommends the following stipulations as condition of approval: (1) A dwelling and accessory structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with national standards for flood proofing; (2) The first floor elevation of habitable space shall be at 824.5 feet; (3) The petitioners shall submit a verifying survey verifying the first floor elevation; (4) A plan to minimize the aesthetic impact of the flood proofing shall be submitted and approved by staff, including architectural (brick siding, etc.) and landscape improvements; (5) The petitioners shall install a hard surface driveway by October 1, 1998; (6) The petitioners shall provide a short term solution to the catch basin to be i�sta((ed in the southwest corner of the property; and (7) The petitioner shall execute a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City from damages and liabi(ity should the dwe(ling be affected by flooding. F T 25, 1997� PAGE 13 Councilwoman Bolkcom asked how many of the homes in this area have been built prior to the ordinances now in effect. She also wanted to know why the ten or so lots are vacant: She wondered if they are small lots and cannot be built on. She stated that there is an understanding. that we do not build on 5,500 foot lots. She requested a reading of the letter with the agenda materials, as it was not legible. Mr. Hickok reported that ordinances requiring 7,500 square foot lots have been in place since 1955. A great number of homes were built in the 1940's, with many homes on 50 foot lots prior to those ordinances. He reported that that lot owners understood they could not build on the lots that are 5,500 feet. To clarify Councilwoman Bolkcom's question about a letter included in the package, Mr. Hickok stated that the writer did not believe that a house built on that lot with no frontage should have that many setbacks. Counciiman Barnette inquired about an area off Main Street, near 44"' and 45�' Avenues, in the � Plymouth Addition. He said that there were a number of 50 foot lots in which there were houses built on them. � Mr. Flora replied that there were three lots in which HUD homes or starter homes were constructed on 50 foot ]ots. Councilwoman Bolkcom expressed concerns as to the height of the home due to flood plain requirements, as well as the precedent the City. may be setting regarding 5Q fo- ot- lots.- She asked -- � what kind of site lines �he LeFaves would have once � tfiis home-vvas� lo�ated--ort t� -1ot: �=-5��- =�� =.= � - wondered how long the petitioner has owned the lot and -if they aware of the lot r�quire�ents. �- = - Councilman Billings recalled a term "setback averaging." He asked if it was a planning term and if _ it applied to this plan. Cauncil has uti}ized this principle before. Perhaps.staff or the petitioner could respond to the visual impact of the structure being 6-feet higher than the adjacent structures. He asked if it was possible to run the siding 4 or 5 feet down from t�e block to give the illusion that the house is lower to the ground. � M�. Hickok stated that staff would require aesthetic treatments to minimize or create a setting of being complimentary to the neighborhood. Setback averaging does apply to thisplan. Councilman Billings stated that there are 106 homes buiit on lots of this size, all of which were buiit prior to 1955. In our society today these are classified as aging properties. He asked what it will do to those homeowners whose homes may .someday be .deemed not worth keeping up or may be needed to be torn down if the City takes the position that we cannot build on 50 foot lots. Mr. Htckok stated that the residents would need to apply for a variance if the property is less �than SO percent of its value. It is conceivable that this could happen. Councilman Schneider asked if the City could say that a resident could not rebuild if there were a fire, a flood, or a catastrophic event that occurred on a 50 foot lots. He asked what the City would want to do with these vacant 50 foot lots. Y CiTY COU� MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 1997• 14 Councilman Billings stated that another point would be that if the City decided that someone could not build on 50 foot lots, mortgage companies would make it difficult to obtain mortgagees on these properties. Insurance may be difficult to obtain as well. A second concern is that the scattered site housing program is not waiting for these 106 homes on 50 foot lots to be unmaintained for the Gity to acquire them. This program is not designed for this need, and funding is not availabie to bank property. If the goal were to revitalize the neighborhood it would be a different scenario than the proposal before us. Councilman Billings asked if this particular item was subject to the sixty-day rule, and where things were in regard to time. Mr. Hickok stated that Council must act on the variance requests at the next meeting. Councilman Billings stated that when the ordinance was passed the suburbs provided a larger piece of land for people moving out. Today, as illustrated in the townhouse developments, a number of people in our society have a busier lifestyle and do not want to maintain a yard. These kinds of things are changing in our society today. Councilman Billings is concerned with setting a precedent for those who already live in Fridley: The lots were platted, and part of the consideration might hinge on how and when the lot was acquired. Mayor Jorgenson clarified that there are some mortgage companies wha would make it difficult to obtain a mortgage on this type of property. Mayor 3orgenson asked if 824.5 feet is higher than the 100 year flood event and if there is an inability to use the basement and a storm sewer system. _ . Mr. Hickok stated that there is no basement allowed. - � �-� : Mr. Flora reported that there is not a formal�stortn sewer-s�stem.-� There is a-�catch basin at the �- �` � Riverview Heights intersection that drains inCo the Mississippi River. � ' Councilwoman Bolkcom asked how it will affect the residents on both sides of a lot when a great amount of storm water collects. She asked what could be done to prevent this. Mr. Flora said he has not seen specifics, but the additional land around the building would be sloped around the structure, but there may be additional run-off. Mr. Hickok reported that there will be minimal grading due to the frost footing. There is a breakpoint midway back on the house with designs for water to drain out to the street that eventually would connect to a storm sewer improvement. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that storm sewer improvements are not planned in the near future. She asked how many lots are under 7,500 square feet. Councilman Schneider stated that there would be a fairly large number of homes built on lots under 7,500 square feet. He asked if the City was saying that if a home built on a substandard lot that burnt down could not be rebuilt. EY CITY COUN�MEETiNG OF AUGUST 25, 1997 + PAGE Mr. Hickok stated that staff would do the research to determine the number of homes built on lots under 7,SOO square feet. He also informed council that if a house burned down the homeowner(s) would have to request a variance. William Nergard, the petitioner, addressed Council. The Nergards do not own the property at this time. Mr_ Nergard is from Fridley and has enjoyed living in Fridley his entire life. Dale Dixon, 600 Ely Street, provided a brief history of the property that was originally owned by the railroad who put together these 50 foot lots as a promotion. As years passed, Fridley became a city. In 1955 zoning restrictions came to pass. With these small lots, this area had a good possibility of becoming a shanty town. Therefore, in an effort to avoid a shanty town environment zoning restrictions were passed regarding 50 foot lots. Residents have abided by the ordinances for many years, and they are now urging Council to abide by the same rules. Mr. Dixon thought that this area has become a less desirable area with assessments to the properties resulting in abandonment when being told their property was unbuildable. Land speculators have come into the area hoping to make money on these properties. He understands that the City wants the lots developed, but that is not what Council has heard from the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not want this type of development. The neighborhood feels that Council should enforce the rules as they stand. Not one person from this neighborhood supports this concept, as it wouid 'be a cietriment to tne neighborhood. _ Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated that his home is located about 15 feet from the back of the Dover property. Mr. Maher owns 13,500 square feet, and his neighbor has approximately 11,500 square feet. Other neighbors have 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. Many people do want big lots, and there is a reason for it. There are many people who are against this variance request. Mr. Maher stated that the sunounding neighbors are willing to buy the lot; . however the price of the property is higher than other lots sold in the area. Neighbors have purchased empty lots for $3,000. The area is well kept and used by many walkers and bikers. The proposed home will stand out because it would be built higher than the existing homes. Looking at where the proposed driveway would sit, it is located right neact to the neighbors' driveway, which requires his permission, and he is opposed. Drainage is also an issue. He asked how the water will move three feet up hill. The water runs from the street, back toward the. creek. With the additional hard surfaces the water would drain to the neighbors. In Mr. Maher's opinion, the structure does not provide adequate square footage. The homes on both sides have a front and a back yacd with a garage on the side. The proposed structure does not. A suggestion for the Planning Commission would be that the adjacent land owners should be notified in order to have an option of expanding their homes. Councilwoman Bolkcom clarified that the lot size is 7,500 for those built prior to 1955, and the current lot size is 5,000 square feet. Ken Hudyma, of 641 Cheryl Street, stated that he would like to clarify the grandfather rule. Of course, they would be able to rebuild an existing structure. Mr. Hudyna opposes the variance requests. � FRiDLEY C�TY COU� MEETING OF AUGUST 25, i997� PAGE i6 Mr. Hickok clarified that if you have a 7,500 square feet lot platted before 1955 it is legal, and a homeowner could rebuild. If the lot is less than 7,SOO.square feet you could not rebuild withaut a variance request. There is no grandfather rule for a 5,000 square feet lot. Dwight Just, 66 i Cheryl Street, lives behind the lot. He stated that he is not in support of the variance requests. Monte Maher stated that his wife was not abie to speak tonight. Her comments were presented to the Appeals Commission. Rod D'Aigle addressed Council regarding comments at the Appeals Commission meeting. One comment was that this house could look like a trailer home on a narrow lot. A photograph of the plan was presented to Council. He felt that the house would not be an eyesore to the comm�anity. Councilman Barnette asked who owns the property and what their intent was whe�; ihey purchased it. Mr. D'Aigle reported that his father purchased the property in 1985. Councilman Barnette asked if Mr. D'Aigle's father was aware that it was not a buildable lot, when he purchased it_ Mr. D'Aigle stated that there were 50 foot lots ihat were built on when the lot was purchased. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that the minimum lot size is the standa�d. How it was configured does nQt matter. A person who makes a purchase is charged with knowing the requirements of the City. He said there is a court case supporting this requirement. If a person asked city staffabout the requirement and receive an incorrect response, the home owner still are charged with knowing the requirements. Mr. Knaak said that what you are confronted with is what typically happens with lot size issues. There is one case in which a radio station gave out 20 feet lots. - In this case, there was a fire. The property had been in the family for decades, and the City voted to foliow the lot sizes. The Fridley City CQUncil is on solid ground in enforcing the lot size requirements. When it comes to variances, similar requests have to be treated in similar ways. If Council allows this variance, they should be very clear o� how this is different. If Council allows the variance, it will be amending the City Code by precedent. Councilman Schneider requested a statement of hardship since the property has not changed since the purchase. Mr. D'Aigie stated that the hardship is what the owner is going to do with the tot. An offer has not been received fro�n neighbors on either side. Complaints concerning site lines have been addressed in the house plan. Right now Frank D'Aigle has a piece of property he cannot do anything with If they could buy a piece of property on either side they would, but they cannot FRiDLEY CITY OF A P because the property is not available. In effect, the City is regulating this piece of property for the benefit of the neighborhood.. Mr. D'Aigle appeared before Council to try to do something with the property. Surveys have been conducted of the property, and it is relatively flat. Mr. D'Aigle said that there have been a lot of inaccurate staiements made concerning the property. He said by building on the property it would not flood out the other neighbors, as they would not be changing the level of the land. An additional plan has been drawn where the garage could be located in front; however he would do whatever staff recommends. Sharing the driveway is an issue of dealing with encroachment currently existing. The property has the required property setbacks for the driveway. This is a unique piece of property, it is small, and there is not much that can be done with the lot. Council cannot make a decision based on public opinion only. Mr. D'Aigle would need to get the variances approved to build on his property. He requested that a decision be made. • Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that many of those homes were in piace prior to 195�. She did not know why someone did not come forward to build on it prior to 1985. She wondered if they knew it was not buildable. Mayor Jorgenson stated that other homes buiit on these lots were built prior to 1955. Right now Council does not look at public opinion only. They lool� at the t�ardshi�: The City:Attomey:has• ��•-: �� - told Council that they need to look at the way they interpret this in�order to compare i# to e�sting ordinances. Mayor Jorgenson expressed her- �s3�mpathy in this- case � a.nd. e�pi�ined- -that -Co�encil - intends to fialance the needs of the petitioners; �he neighborhood� homeowners, :and �th�-Eit�: - ��. There are flood considerations and s�orrn wat�r--=co�sid�raUons as vuell: :Cou�ncil::�eecls::ta:hea�- =- -_ _:� �� from neighbors-to see what direction t�►ey will �go-a.s�f�r as making a decisia�n�fhis-ev��ing ��-` - - - ��- - Mr. D'Aigle stated that there-�is a hardship far the-�wners of�.the��roperty: due to the�CEty's requirements. The property owner has done all he can: Councilma� Billings asked if a hardship is a dicect resu�t of unique conditions of the property. Mr. Knaak stated that you cau _purc�hase: the }��c�perty =�at t�te � ti�n� �tk�e �_r.o�rditions= of t�he ��rardsk�i� � -- exist you lose the right to object. There are several cases to� cite supporting that argument. An undersized lot, pwrchased as an undersized lot; cannot be used as hardship. Councilman Billings stated that he did not see Council moving in the direction of passing the variance. If we allow building on a lot at 5,500 square feet it does not mean we set a precedent on lot splits. If three, 25 square foot lots are tied together as one ta�c parcel, this is a separate issue. He asked if that created the definition of lack of similarities. Mr. Knaak stated that it does not set a precedent. Councilman Bil(ings asked if Council would be setting a precedent if they allowed an ownec of a 110 foot frontage property to split it to create two 55 feet frontages. Mr. Knaak answered in the affirmative. illLEY CfTY COUI'�i, MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 199� PAI 18 Councilman Bi(lings asked, in a catastrophic event, if the City took the position that in order to treat similar lots similar Council would have to deny 109 homes built on these similar lots. Mr. Knaak stated that there would be no different hardship if these are similar lots. If they are non-conforming lots they would require a variance to rebuild. Councilman Billings asked if it is a dif�'erent issue with the home on Fairmont Street. Mr. Knaak asked what the variance was for. Councilwoman Bolkcom replied that the variance was for additional square footage for living space. Mr. Knaak stated that if in fact timing is the same, if one has a dwelling and the other does not, ° it does not change the interpretation of the variance. He suggested that it is often a good practi�e to defer a final decision until a draft of the findings has been completed.. In this instance of determining the request based on lot size; nothing more is needed. You are accepting the recommendation of the Appeals Commission. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom for denial of Variance Request #97-12. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. Councilman Schneider stated that this was- an excellent plan, _and the petitioners worked very _ hard. Councilman Schneider will vate` for denial. �- He safd t�af ii�-did�not see :th� `hardship: T�e ` -� -• stated that Council must consistently administer code requirements. Councilwoman Bolkcom urged the petitioners not to take the denial of the variance request or the comments from the Appeals Commission or City Council meetings personally. The proposed home looks like a very nice home; but the location the owners wanted it built is in a very unique situation. Councilwoman Bolkcom hoped that the petitioners would find anotherlot in the City. 11. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS Point-of Sale Inspection Program or Sin�le Familv Housing Mr. Fernelius, HRA Housing Coordinator, reported on the Poin f-Sale Inspection Program as a foliow-up to the July 29, 1997 City Councit discussion. ' ce February, staff has researched options on developing an inspection program for owne ccupied housing to determine unsafe housing conditions. A variety of ordinances have b adopted in the metropolitan area falling into three categories. The "Information Only" egory discloses the condition not requiring repairs. The second category, Hazardous Co itions, discloses the condition requiring repairs. The third category, Code Comp(iance, is th ost strict approach involving hazardous conditions and code requirements. September 10, 1997 /� � ; � � L � Barbara Dacy Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue Fridley, MN 55432 RE: VAR #97-12 Dear Ms. Dacy: We have reviewed the City Council action taken at the meeting on August 25, 1997. We heartily concur with your denial of our request for a variance on the lot size. Our concurrence comes not from your refusal to grant the variance but rather from preventing us building our first home in a neighborhood without class or respectability. We say this based on the inappropriate outbursts by the neighbhors in Riverview Heights. We have found an alternative location outside Fridlev for our new home where we will raise and educate our family and be active in the community. This community seerns to have more tolerance for young people who will be here in the future to pay the taxes and participate in events to build a stronger community. Thank you for opening our eyes before we made the terrible mistake of planning our future in Fridley. William and Wendy Nergard 7760 Central Avenue Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 cc: Frank R and Margaret E. D'Aigle �� 09-1�-1997 08�45AM � � � CITYOF FiliDLEY � 612 49'�' �600 P . 02 FRi[}T..FY MC3NIC;ipALCFN�'�1t • 643i UNNERSITY 1�VE. N_E;. 1=(tIUi.EY, MN 554;i2 •(bl2y 571-3�SU • E�AX (612) 571-t2Y7 1 � ► ACTtON TAKEN NQTICE Wiliiam and Wendy Nergard 7760 �,entral Avenue N_E. Sprine.Lake Park, MN 55432 Dear Mr. and Ms. Nergard: August 27, 1997 On August 25, '1997, the Fridfey City Council officialty denied your request for a variance, VAR #97-12, to reduce the required !ot size from 7,500 square feet to 5,500 square €eet; 4o increase t�e io� coverage irorn 2�% to 32'/0; io decrease the Tronf yard `� setback from 35 feet to 22 fee#; and to reduce the rear yard setbacic from 27.5 feet to 17.5 feet, al! in order to build a new single family house on Lots 26 and 27, Biock W, Rivervi�w Heights, generally locaied at 650 Dover Street N.E_ If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AlCP Community Oevelopment Director B�Dldw cc: Frank R. and Margaret �. D'Aigle ✓ Please review th� aboue, sign the statement below and return one copy ia the City af Fridley P(anning Department by September 10, 1997_ l �f � � .��- . Concur w h actio taken.