The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR91-33� . CITSC OF FRIDLESC • • 6431 @IIVffitBITY AVf�]OE N.&. FRIDLEY� MN 55432 Oo�amitV Develonment Deparhnetlt (612) 571-3450 __...___._....�..._......_..�......__._._ VARIP�NCB APPLICATS�i FC�i PRpPERTY II�TIoTI - site plan required for sulxnittals; see attached Address; SO � G l,�1�7 C O C TK.�`'� Iegal description: t-�T �0 �� S-► ��Z oF LI�T 1 Z �LOGK � Lot � % Block _�_ Tract/Addition �, , , �_(} GUrrent zoning: �� Square foatage/acreage c��,�,,-� .�2.1i ♦ �1"}�.'��- � Reason for variance arxi har,3ch;p: �►L1,1. �u�BYhtT °��..�.(�l� r��.��Ct � �/ d�OS'. �%7� �%� C� ��a i�7� O N /vLc.T'� l �-� b Section of City Code: � r^ i�• � i••i r• •� (�ntract Purchasers: Fee owrbers must sign this form prior to processi.ng} _ NAME r, r •; i;�• � t • •. r •! � � � ifi • ��-a. !!�P_ 1 1: �! �• � i • • � • � � ' lr�� lu BiS:C�;.la �: Ya F�: �i°°.`� �$ 60.00 � for residential properties �_ � Permit VAR # � � -yj�- Receipt # �� - O / Application received by: + ►'/. ��p,�,a,�� Scheduled Appeals Commission date: Schedaled City Council date: 6J F a m u e u K � M a 0 C h O F U O i m u y m � CbG q.yLYl •Ct0 G00y0 0 WN9 1�LOY OtiY 9.+W9 A '� � 3YN 1�LO N C> 4 -.CiV � CmOS .Gi�1M Gti Y 0 Y C q � Qw �M yC„�� C �OTM ..�X � y %d� GV CY Y-~i>b V 4..Wj CU D m v "�y�m 1�V104 p �wA"" "'i CO .mi y� � Way ~W U� ..'�i 9 �M AMp� Y..�iCw V CC'� PNp.�s U m G 0. lf 0 �.Gi Pl�G ��r�-IC =mlaiaq7 � pq GyO� OOLQ �C W 4'0 O� M y yy C �wu' t>a.°. oyeu rwc"�wo c °u..°� mmnu a�°u'u �60c�V °o ~G� �A CV . d�Y..pi Tii�UJO! U U '1� � '�'�.,�j b m uTA V m A O.y U 03� �3V.d �y�E mm�pw o i0 1+ c> � u C �� Oi�.�1Cq P'L"�dT ^�MO"�.9i%� � yMm �LO00 p'L'Oj q9M"0Y '�+��y MYO �Y pp..Ni O> >'�m m�C G m � U� G� M�.�iC tl13 G�4 N4�.Vid AQ A � 0 ,y U � 3 m Y U 0 "F�by A CYO�M ..�jpjGV u� m Q�0 p� 9 ^� > 9.. Y m\ ✓+� 1 q C N 10 A.� C N m OpV C �)M q L C M+� .y a�+�dUO POp�Ww XV�I�COI .Qi.�i •�qU O O� 4bC C YO ✓ p Cn+�N � N q<IYH U MN Y OAI+ +�7M4C +iYN N U C mPd4 N YO d6YD 'OYGOL ILMN w01AYYr OObO qq MN .+OP-�❑ G fi o0m49 Cq UpU M4'OW VM OiV RN1� L W �V Yd 0Y �l n101 ti N � < m -+ o t •� u v V i m ^� _ 4 W U N O q � t „Uj U 'i M d a 6 �y A -�1 y.i H O u �a � m ,� � C L> .-i • y � y �d ay m �-ml q q � M m a p.1+ ° U y N' �S A m y y U -yi a m � U ^� N ,w nu° "o 0 T y m ^. a c", w d a� U �6 � w � my uy o em cu c e a.,, m a 0Y mV 0 y C p y� 4 p -•Oi i�i • p p� q 3~i YL m C q V 90 q dw m O • 'y 'U O C d �G �mti O .i M N y� O N m Ofi y q�+ 9 O M � .� Q m m ° c a z'� Y W -✓ M G� d4 N a uau c � .1 u w �o d . . .y U 6�.a.�i V .i n O�.q O CL 4 G U mw q C ti W y O N . y %� O G 4 Q Oy 0 G '{ O� .y O G w 9 9� °cc C 0 N „�� O� �1 W C 0 �1 � .O �ua ?�CL W +, w.r0 M L G W d u O w � 0 cma .°+,� o O�V l.�Y +ViM q wYTJ a'sc v+ �o n m a m v V E C C q q� W C y � .Y ti b m � y y G� 9 "� L Ob m ti d W � � 0 a A y M ?� � N � F � y G � � c ,"y o, .'�i L � .,� y ti O U P A a c o v u a "" �' a o m � o u w � o .di m 3 u � •• � m d M L O� C� A la ++ w y � y �-�i m w a O A G .� U C � U C 4 Z y F V M q 4 C O �� G O .y 4 Y s � a m Mc a w -+ ` O F y� .i tT M l� m b O q � C q �.Gi O W o O YLN y "�O C L .y q O 4 b~ N C O W C 9 Y p pl Y 1�i U 0� +�i N %Vi U m M3 ��C. G Y ro O M 0 q A Y q ++ A +� M N � C L M U 6 Y .� N U' L Y w 0 9 U tl J 0 O O C W w N Y U X q ..� �.i 2 N o O � m O W E �.ti w � w � v vi �o r � u 0 O N G G 0 E � b C N C W 7 A H � a A G W m '� � U m N 9 � 0 7 ? O Y a1 tr a u v a H o v M ° � �-I L 0 N 'd LL N N N y 9 Y U U � d �.�i G d � w a a .o � M N l� .-i C G '� O N +V +1 � G L� Y .% n e m u H u G m m O. 6V q O N ✓ �p � �q �y {! M M M U 1� N � �U L AO p�l�+ u�. i m i i c' s n M M �r1 j� �y V H M V 7 M � V � CIlYOF F[ZlDLEY COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW ��R � aKre r�r� o�►rE FILE DESCRIPTION �#91-33 57 10-25-91 : 11-12=91 501 Glencce St. N.E. COMPLETE REVIEW CFECKLIST AND RETtJRN TO PLAt�11NG DEPT. ■ � M. „TT_T:� ;1 . [�JOHN F. �,,/� C. CLYDE M. M.%o-.� H. �°- 3� CHUCK M.��`�1 COMMENTS � l�s1- o� va.� o-�,�� e�- I�,— —b wtr. —�,r �h Y �,�,�I�, � , � v�n.�s � 1�. ,��- ��F.�,� �/� /�"� h "'' <✓ �� eK /�'l� .✓yc,� �t !/'i'J.i�✓l �low�jl.ti. �, � Lti.3 rn�� TN'cs �� 4 ��-� t��rx� �� .tm��,.�-� �.-I- ��; l �y •��o � October 28, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: � When we purchased the property on 501 Glencoe Street, we were given the option of tearing down the house and building new, or bringing the �isting house to code. We do not have the funds to tear down and build new, so we made plans to renovate. Our plans and material list includes much more than just bringing the house up to code. By changing the roof line, adding a garage and putting on new maintenance free eacterior(vinyl siding, soffit & facia), we were seeking to enhance the property as well as the neighborhood. A new house in this area would be more "non-conforming" than a remodeled house. The lot size isn't suited for a house'over 1,020 feet. Also, all of the homes on Glencoe are older, smaller remodeled homes, many which do not i _ __._ meet today's minimum scruare footage requiremPnts. ' It is a perfect area for the first time homeowner. We feel with today's economy, there is an urgent need for more homes like this. Many young couples cannot aPford a new home. Our plans would provide a house like new, but at an affordable price. I have been in the construction, estimating and remodeling business since 1976. I understand and can see the difference bc�tween real prices for laihor and materials versus inflated material and labor costs by greedy contractors. We have complete confidenee in our plans and feel it would,fit in nicely and benefit the neigborhood. If we are unable to go ahead with our plans, financially, I only have one option. That is just make the house inhabiiable and rent or sell it as quick as possible. Plumbing, heating, electrical, paint, carpet & clean-up would be under your 50ti requirement. I am totally capable of doing the work on the roof and the whole exterior of the house, for a reasonable price if you don't include labor costs. I will gladly show you references on request. By going that extra mile, this home could be so much better. Our original plans were to have this house on the market by March. Now I won't even have an answer until December. We realize this process takes time, but hope you can see we-are sincere in our intent to enhance your neighborhood. We are speaking for many people in the neighborhood who are tired oP looking at a runned down property that by now could be looking like new if we could have gone ahead tioith our plans. Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, Steve Hunger F "' �� Z t� �ii 6� � -� � � October 23, 1991 Steve Hunger 501 Glencoe Fridley, MN 55432 RE: 501 Glencoe Dear Mr. Aunger, You have requested that the City respond in writing as to why we will not issue a building permit for the above referenced property and to outline the options that you have. The subject parcel is currently nonconforming with both the Zoning and Building Codes of the City of Fridley. You are aware of the improvements needed to bring the building up to the current Building Code. The parcel does not meet the Zoning Code in the following areas: 1. The parcel does not meet the minimum lot area of 7500 square feet as required in Section 205.07.03.A.(2). 2. The side yard setback of 10 feet as required in Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a). is not met. 3. The structure does not meet the minimum square footage of 1,020 square feet as required in Section 205.07.04.B.(1). Section 205.04.03 states that lawful nonconforming uses can continue to exist in the zoning district; however, if repairs to the property constitute more than 50� of the value of the property, the property loses its lawful nonconforming status, and the property must conform to the current codes. The City Assessor has valued your dwelling at $15,600, payable 1992. Fifty percent of $15,600 is $7,800. The estimate you provided indicates that your materials total $12,214.70. It is typical procedure to include the cost of labor as well as materials in construction values stated on the building permits, despite the fact that an individual is completing the work rather than hired labor. Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official, estimates that your labor costs should be an additional $12,000. This would bring your total to $24,214.70, more than 50� of the value of the dwelling. Because our typical policy has always been to include labor costs, and because your 6K �� Hunger Page 2 estimate is over the 50� threshold, staff does not have the ability to administratively ignore the code and issue the permit. In order to receive a building permit, you will need approval of a variance in one of three ways. This is due to the property losing its lawful nonconfomring status as explained above. Your three options are as follows: 1. Demolish the existing structure and process a lot area variance for a new structure that would meet all code requirements including setbacks, building area, garage space, building codes, etc. 2. Process a variance request to waive the 50� requirement which will maintain the lawful nonaonforming status of the remaining items (Lot area, setback, and building size). 3. Process a variance request for all items identified in #2 above. I have enclosed copies of the appropriate sections of the code for your information. If you or your legal counsel have further questions, please contact me at 572-3593 or Barb Dacy at 572-3590. Sincerely, Michele A. McPherson, BLA Planning Assistant MM/mm C-91-361 6L .�� . • PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger: Per Section 205.04.03 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50$ of the fair market value of a structure; Per Section 205.07.03.A.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 square feet to 7,460 square feet; Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet; Per Section 205.07.04.B.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum structure size from 768 square feet to 712.12 square feet; To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above stated time and place. DIANE SAVAGE CI-IAIRPERSON APPEALS COMMISSION Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. � ---.'s�`.� Steven Htmger 14041 Vi.newood i.ane Dayton, .tiRI 55327 Margaret Hashrook 531 Fairnnnt Street N.E. Fridley, I�fiI 55432 Frank Steen 521 Fairtmnt Street N.E FYidley, hN 55432 Dariald Niaziiol 520 Glen�e Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 A3vid Ryan 52Q Glencoe Stx�et N.E. Fridley, NE�I 55432 Diane Ols� 538 Glencoe Street N.E. Fridley, I�7 55432 Fiex��iert Ba.xler 530 Glenooe Street N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Randolph Sering 528 Glenooe Street N.E. Fridley, I�Y�I 55432 �lomas I�ard 526 Glenooe Street N.E Fridley, NA1 55432 • NP�ILING LIST VAR #91-33 501 GLENCOE SZREEP N.E. David Morgan 527 Glenooe Street N.E. Fridley, NID7 55432 FYederick 7.1az'�in 529 Glencoe Street N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Tiirothy Marchiafava 533 Glencoe Street N.E. Fridley, PN 55432 Stuart Andexscn 539 Glencoe Street N.E. Fridley, M[d 55432 Stuart Andersari 999 - 41st Aven� Pi.E. Colimibia Heights, NA7 55421 Tim Plarm�n�(L'1: 540 Hugo Street N.E. FYidley, NN 55432 I�rgamt iaberge 530 Hugo Stxeet N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Alfred Kexl 52Q Hugo Street N.E� FYidley, M�1 55432 Ibnald [elickstrom 5�6 Hugo Street L7.E, Fridley, NN 55432 �-*---n � INailed; 11/1/91 Raymond Overson 509 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, NIN 55432 Frank Brazil 517 Hugo Street N�E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ibnald Olson 521 Htx3o StYeet N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Omella Bhagroo 461 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, I�AI 55432 Floyd C. Bradley 9648 Quincy Street N.E. Blaine, NIDI 55434 Alfred Kellner 8182 East River Road Fridley, M�I 55432 Daniel Sadowski 8180 East River Road Fridley, NN 55432 EYRest Draheim 8164 Fast River Rpad FYidley, NIDI 55432 Soott (Zuiteem 499 Glencoe Street N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 �� Mailing List - page 2 VAR #91-33 501 Glenooe Street N.E. Karin Fjeldas 8161 East River Road Fridley, hN 55432 MaUel (boper 513 Fairnnnt Street N.E kYidley, NY�I 55432 J�nes E�lraxiov ��- SOA Glencoe Street N.E. FYidley, NN 55432 SAS Fnterprises 3710 Central A�nue N.E. Minneapolis, t�1 55421 Occupant 8154 East River I�ad EYidley, MV 55432 Occ�ant 815Q East River �ad Fridley, NN 55432 Dale Pearson 11750 Jiuuper Stxeet N.FI. Ooon Rapids, NN 55433 Stephen Nlitzel 1349 1Q4th Lane N.E. Blaine, NN 55434 Diane Savac� 567 Rioe CYeek Terrace N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 City Council City Manager I�'l/��' �' y'' ( � Buyer's Lasl Nam `,Firbl. Mitldle IBitial Hunger, 8 �wen J ;: � � el er ast amB htRt, Mi ele Initial ..�(� � [f�..' �. �\, ' . Street Addrem or Rtire �POUte M Properry 501 Glea¢oat�treet Lagal 6escripliontii Property Purchasec of Real Estate�lue nama, Atltlress or �egal description) NumUer Lot 10 11`� and Saet � of Lot 12 Block H Rivaroiex flaisthte ANoke Couatv. Minaesota Type of AcqulsiHon (check all boxes which apply) ❑�YOU end aeller arg relafives �� . ❑ Buyer is a religious ar l ❑ V4ur neme a0tlad �o or co-owner's or relatetl qusinexaes charitable organization - �eme removetl Irom deeC (not a sale) � Pmperry is a gi�t or in�eritance ❑ 8uyer is a uni[ ol govemmen� ❑ Vou pmchasetl partial in�erest Only � You receivetl pmper[y in a traEe ❑ You contlemnetl or forecloaeC ❑ Da�e purchasetl agreement sig�d is on Ihe propehy over [wa yeen ago �Fill in year lf you checked any box above, skip the rest o/ this form, sign it and iill out schedule 8 Type of PropeAy Transferred (check all boxes which apply) ❑ Lana Only ' � lentl anE Bviltlings � ❑ ConsimcHOn ol e new builEing comple[etl . �� - ailer Jenuary 1 oi year ol sale Planned Use of Property (check one box) �Resitlential (singlq Euplez, triplex) . ❑ Aparlmen[ (NUmCer of unils j ❑ Cabin or Hecreetlonel . ❑ Agricultural � Commercial-Industriel ❑ D�her Use (Cescribe below) (Type ol business _. � Financial Arrangements (instructions are on back of yellow copy) 1 Tolal Purc�ase Price 2 Totel Artqunt oi �rsanal RopeNy 3 Date Seller Signed Purchase Agreement , � (trom sc�etlule A on back oi this s�eet) . �i4,noi_no xone s/2o/9i 4 �own Paymenl � 5 Poinis or PrepaiE Interest PaiE by Seller 6 Points or Prepaitl Inlerest Paitl by 6uyer . � . . ( � .. .. ' Is fiis a � Contract or �� Azsumetl v Martgege? ' Yes Na � ❑ ❑ � � � Describe each mortgage and contract lor deed used to pu�chase this property Mortpage Or Contmc[ lor peed Monthly Paymenl lor Interasl Rate Totel Number :� Oaie W Any Lump Sum Amount al Purchase Principal eiM Interest , Qn EHeci Now) oF Paymenls �Balloon) Paymenis 9 ❑ ❑ t0 I( e morl9age or contmct for tleetl is not a veriable market rate but [he terms ol peyment are schetluletl ro chanqe on e fineJ tlate, fill in its line numbe� fwm above, ihe mont� anE year ol t�e cM1ange, antl wha� it will c�ange lo (or altach 3 copies ol payment.schatlule): Fill out schedule B on the back of this sheet to determine the amount oi your deed tax 1 tleclare Ne� t�e' ormation fill¢0 in on Ihis form is Vue, correct entl camplete to Ne Eest o� my knowletlge antl belie�. PriN or type name oi person signing this (orm Signature . P�one Number Da�e T —_ C � � L � � 1[ e=�' illlanl. GGP , x _..-.-� ;ic - -1 �;r �--� �, ! � 5D i� Us Y�BU. De� -�-E� � . De artQ r+a c � �ai� i � � I Mv __...._... . . ,.____—_ � r c,��' vr_.. �� _ 9 � INe 9� �:��_�91�1� i ot Piat-Parcef / ./n_� s_�Y.� � roi - --- -- ^r L . ._..__' '_ ' ___ iD —__. .. . _._ __- _ _ a �. a , 6Q couNn corr � Nov. 5, 1991 City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, NIN 55432 Attention: __Appeals CaRnission Ms. Michelle Mc Pherson � RE: Consideration of variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger Dear NLs. Mc Pherson: As per our telephone conversation this afternoon, I wish to express our family concerns regarding the above request. We would like to see the building torn daan and replaced by a new hane on that lot. In our opinian, no amount of fixing is going to make that eyesore any more appealing. By doing that, all of the property values of the surrounding homes �uld increase. We also have a concern that the place will be fixed up and then rented out as rental property which we are definetely o�os� to. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, `' iv � oan��9 r�. �onard 526 Glencoe St. N. E. Fridley, MN 55432 L'la] � .� ! • Nwember 6, 1991 My name is Steve Hunger. I have purchased the HOD house at 501 Glencoe Street. I am trying to obtain a permit from the City of Fridley to fix the house up. I intend to change the roof line slightly to give the house an upqraded look. The city says the hou�e i� 5 feet to close to the neighbor's on the East side.and the house is not worth repairing. I've been in the construction and remod}iling business for 15 years and i feel this house is worth repairing. I am going to submitt this petition to the City o£ Fridley next week, and I need your signature saying that you don't object to this property being repaired. I'd appreciate your support on this, we have already started some repairs and the hold up on this permit is a real set back for us. Thank You, Steve Hunger �� l`r� __...�� Nwemoer 6, 1991 My name is Steve Hunger. I have purchased the HUD house at 501 Glencoe Street. I am trying to obtain a permit from the City of Fridley to fix the house up. I intend to change the roof line slightly to give the house an upgraded look. The city says the houJe iQ 5 feet.ta_close�±� the neic's�oY`'s on the E�st side:and the house is not worth repairing. I've been in the construction and rettioc�leing business for 15 years and i feel this house is worth repairing. I am going to submitt this petition to the City of Fridley next week, and I need your signature saying that you don't object to this property being repaired. I'd appreciate your support on this, we have already started some repairs and the hold up on this permit is a real set back for us. 6T . 4 �� - � � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE Novemtaer 12, 1991 CINOF PLANNWG COMMISSION DATE FRIDLEY GTY COUNGL DATE ��-�r 9, 1991 p�T�.pp t�/ls REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UTLfT�S PARK DEDiCATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONqVG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #91-33 Steve Hunger See Public Hearing Notice 501 Glencbe Street N.E. 7,460 sq. ft.; .17 acre 1�1, Single Family Aaelling I�1, Single Family Daelling to the W, N, & E; C-1, Local Business, to the S see statt RPport Approval with stipulations .• VAR �i91-33 � •Steven Hunger sB LOCATION MAP �� ■' _ __ , ITY � OF VAR 1191-33 Steven Hunger �, ��.��. `�� ,: � .�`� ��-� � � w:� ' � �, �. � -� : . �� , � ,� ,�, � �`,�} � � `� \ � � � � � �, \ '- .� :� � .� � `'j,r+, � /GHTS ° O � . �"�' t;.� ^'�y :;.r' �' ,d -(p, ` � "� 3 try� � �� !� C�:+ .� 3 � �',� !`'� �� . ` �� 1� 3� . ' �,j �l i S . ��) ' � + A `j.r �. IRONTON p ET .. 141 Iza �•: C�i �11 r 6 t� � z. � 2�i. SPRI � e v, e�o6� ; `� � ��. � R a t s a .. � 1 �. ( ' N f B � S � •' �" GLENCO �� s.s ++y+ 3 c a �``J _ i PARK c I e� '� s L RV'F� -� ,.. � J i, � 4 i ' E � , . _ . + 5 � �� s M w:. � u _ _ _ _ _ + , f• �o = • �,K €,:� y -- � 9 \ * ! U u ,� . � : ,... , 4�,. 3 199 . ; �r i . m e�r � x 8 �� 9 ,� y ; , . t �� P� W � + O Q ' � ,��, 418ERTY ST. Z �/ ♦ z • � o � �. 7 � � � �� 6 � s . '( Q t �\ ` ��, LONG LLOW �` .�\`. � `I ��, !r 1 8¢ � z, ,.,� . ..� . . . . � . . .e .•.., .,. , . � . \� �, � ♦ . . _. � c � ikJ q�,; •4• `. � t.' •� t 1i- • .. . RIVER W i: �� 1D� t •A�� %t� �iS • ► �}� � es -r --�`�--1i-_�., s • . • • • • • • • • • • � HEIGNT� 0. s;. � k � � �� • • • • • • • • � �4y t.'. , � . ♦ • • • • • •�• • • • � y� i , � Q ti � �i • ♦ • • • • q• • • • � � `"�1�1 •b ,� ��'�,r�• •�Y( �• •,IS4 \� ` .: /� � ' ry � � < 14 ,� � � �►C (t . \ • • � f�/ .y�. d � �ib � • • • • •�S \ ��` 1 � '� A, b� •M �� •��'�•� , •�i i � � �' "� g .. '� � � 3. � � � � 1 � N • • • • • • � �� \ � �ii.�P�e ` � � -�t � B ��p1 � •��• • •�• • i . _ . .�.� _ �5T . sc ZONING MAP � � Staff Report VAR #91-33, 501 Glencoe Street N.E. Page 2 A. STATED HARDSHIP: See attached letter. B: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Reauest The petitioner is requesting that four variances be granted. l. 2. 3. To allow continued nonconformance of the structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of the structure; To reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft.; To reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet; The variance request would allow reconstruction of the vacant single family dwelling located on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street. The City's records indicate that the home has been vacant since June 29, 194�, Site Located on the property is a vacant single family dwelling unit. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the properties to the west, north, and east. C-1, Local Business, zoning is located to the south. Analysis Section 205.04.03.B allows upgrading of a nonconforming structure to a safe condition, provided the necessary repairs do not exceed 50� of the fair market value of such structure. Public Purpose served by this requirement is to provide an opportunity, when nonconforming structures and uses are damaged more than 50$, for the City to bring them into compliance with current codes. Section 205.07.03.A.(2) requires sq. ft. where a lot is one on a before December 29, 1955. . � a minimum lot area of 7,500 subdivision or plat recorded ' ~ � � Staff Report VAR #91-33, 501 Glencoe Street N.E. Page 3 Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the congestion of overcrowding in a residential neighborhood. Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living area and side property line. Public purpose of this requirement is to reduce exposure to the possibility of fire and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. Pr000sal The petitioner purchased the home from HUD and needs to complete repairs to bring the dwelling unit up to today's zoning and building codes. These repairs include new plumbing, heating, electrical work, and the petitioner is proposing additional improvements to the home. The attached single car garage had been converted to living area, and the petitioner is proposing to add a new single car garage to the structure. The variances are required as the structure is nonconforming, and City staff believes the proposed repairs exceed 50� of the fair market value of the structure. In addition, Section 205.04.03.E of the Zoning Code states: "Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is abandoned for a period of 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter." Therefore, to reconstruct the structure as it is located would require the petitioner to apply for and be granted the variances. variance #1 Variance #1 is to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of the structure. If the Commission approves this variance, the remaining variances are unnecessary as the property would maintain its lawful nonconforming status. The petitioner is proposing approximately $12,000 worth of repairs to the structure. The estimate provided by the petitioner is a materials-only estimate. Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official, states that it is the City's policy to include both labor and materials in all estimates on building permit applications. In addition, Mr. Clark states that labor is approximately equal to materials in any repair job; therefore, the total amount of the repairs is approximately 6E � � Staff Report VAR #91-33, 501 Glencoe Street N.E. Page 4 $24,000. The City Assessor has assessed the dwelling at $15,600, 50$ of which is $7,800. It is clear that the materials estimate alone far exceeds 50$ of the fair market value. Staff recommends that the Commission not of the nonconforming dwelling as the exceeds 50� of the fair market value of Variance #2 allow reconstruction cost of repair far the structure. Variance #2 is to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq, ft. The subject parcel is a platted lot of record and to deny reconstruction of the existing dwelling or reconstruction of a new structure based on the lack of adequate lot area would constitute a taking and render the parcel unbuildable. Staff recommends that the variance to reduce the minimum lot area be approved, as to deny it would render the parcel unbuildable. Variance #3 Variance #3 is to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet. The existing structure is located 4.8 feet from the side lot line. If the Commission allows reconstruction of the dwelling unit, staff recommends that this variance be approved to permit the existing encroachment. However, if the Commission does not allow reconstruction of the existing dwelling unit and requires that a new structure be constructed, staff recommends that this variance request be denied, as the petitioner would then have opportunity to meet the required setbacks. Recommendation: The issue which the Appeals Commission must decide first is whether to allow reconstruction of the existing nonconforming structure, even though the necessary repairs exceed 50% of the fair market value. If the Commission approves the variance to waive the 50$ requirement, variances 2-3 are unnecessary. However, if the Commission chooses to deny the request and require the petitioner to construct a new structure on the property, staff recommends that the lot area variance be approved in order to allow construction of a new structure. Staft's recommendation to the Appeals Commission is as follows: sF ..-- � � Staff Report VAR #91-33, 501 Glencoe Street N.E. Page 5 1. Recommend denial of variance #1 to allow continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of the structure. 2. Recommend approval of variance #Z to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. 3. Recommend denial of varianoe #3 to reduce the required side yard setback from l0 feet to 4.8 feet. Staff recommends the following stipulations as a condition of approval: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992. 2. The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. Apneals Commission Action The Appeals Commission originally considered this item on November 12, 1991. While the Appeals Commission recommended denial on the 50� rule, the intent was to permit the petitioner to rehabilitate the house. The Appeals Commission reconsidered its motion regarding the 50� variance on November 26, 1991, because staff believed that the Commission made its decision based on an erroneous interpretation of the ordinance provided by staff at the November 12, 1991, meeting. Therefore, the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of all the variance requests to the City Council with the stipulations recommended by staff. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve only the variance to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. The cost to repair the house clearly exceeds 50� of the fair market value; therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the variances to the 50� threshold and the side yard setback. s� avvoao ENGINEERING i�EOTE�HNICS 7708 Ll�KELAND AVENUE Scale I"= 30' P.'O. GSSEU. MINNESUTA. VAR 1191-33 Steven Hun¢er ,�d.�G.�'�� LAND SURVEYIN PHONf: (612�i CERTIFICATE 4F SURVEY Au.-rHUrZ, TtN�� UcnoiC '.rcn Monum�nt. � � \ 1 � \l . � �� . , �� ``�, ` / 1 � O , � � � 11. LoTZ�� II, AUO TH EAST�ZOF 1 LoT 12 � gLoGK N i�,�vER.vtG`a./ N6lCZNTS 1 �` 1�.1 , ,� � �a,�- �� ,ay A ; o 1 �b,0 �� 1� �oJ' ti� �* i `��{�^•;,\� ,,� - , U i , 1 . ' ;1 ab . W �, s' �.\IGKA .�oUA�T}�, MiNNE��7 `y� ,• � � � � � O 1'y �Q'0. ` tJ G �%''(/, o �� • �. � �� ; We hereby certify thot this is u inie and correci represental�oii cf a survey of the boundaries of the Id obove and of the locotion of all 6wldings ther�on, anJ all visible encroachments, if ony, from or c As surveyed by me this _. _.t�TN ��y o{._..,., �1 �n N� _ __ _ ------- .. - CASWELL ond ASSOG � sH SITE PLAN � 2� �Q� J� _ �1 • � � � . . �I^.. M_I/� COAMfA � , MM CORNEF •. �. '•. � __ �. l_ � � � SEC. 3 � � � � . _ q _ . . -':.'! - � + ... . ..,.:_ �- rrA� _- — . - .. � _� � —�r :��- � . __`..'1 . .. ' '..Y,...3— __T' . r�. r.... . F_ __..7— . ` -..r �� .. REVISED AUD1T40RS ' ;z JQv �� Q � ., ,£ � � �'. � �. .,.i 3 Q O �i\�\> . w 3 , c <.. ,, a..i � -. ( l " / vyll � . .N �� . . i .. p�� :w i .a _t � 1y�Y v .y � � � - . . ' � j � � !r� - � '�. � �.i r+`v! `. .yi GEi +s :��. iQ -� O \ _ _ 3�r� i� s � � .•o� q � � .R�� rc � � � _, _ "�n �r+ \ � z � 3. ,._. � i. � , .. z . �x 1 " S = Cr) AYE . W. - � . _,. � � ,% +\ 4 � , .. .. • „ o� t L '9q1N ✓ � irx . � I, ' s� 1 ' . . . \ ,... � � i � < �}�, �� J �' y /� yt �� 1�: i} y h y n � A CaL �Yi � � � I. 1 � . � g SUB. N0. 103 $ `' 3�✓) _� � �r) j .1) �:� .a f�. \�\ (�l� . . r `V � J y �: ..:9, y .°. P.� f.� 1 b� � N S � c i6 (Y) I: ` . ...n � 3 G.) �i� " (�,/]�..., � ��l � � y °� s' �� ' w � :1 i ,,,. ' n ,1 � , \� � . � �• J /G (i) � � \ A . i1 o dJ /D � � r� �i� �' C` �: o �� , � S � JL � V �, � \ ,� . � 11' ;.. � �'i� �ff.� • . .. �.��J:� ./ � %' <l..s/ � `.�� P ' � .n •;� ,. � ��7 � R �� M1t t Q.� - , , _ . i P' J r J , \ ¢� � � %4 /3 iz : i t � 9 � �a(+,• � 6•) � _,1, M �M , \ .. (� ` � � : Id - � a. u. rz. �ci . ' . ` . ,1 a "'.: i ISSISSIPPS , z � • �' � " � .. . �� 4e :. � :_ P ii v��,4�) �� ° � � � lP ., � i N - _._.. ��%i I � �l0) � rS ' n Go GJ � Gu i NWi �/ ,. '•E a —\ �•��, /E\ i9 20 • 2/ � � ) �r�i A' 0.E 1 1 , . M : � r `� ` . d : i` ...,nr��:��. '. s• n i s v'e i ,... � . , . � � ,` +'. y�, P� � wim ei 16 +'�•� �v�b.�i � � �`� � i�£!P!' � � � � O • VR i A,i F1l s a� �,��R�'�� .a . o��,a @r�� ,�?1 r ,,;��,�� ° 4 � i�a�� q� � a.�� 4 �'��i'� '�;��t��;��p �� ;��tp,aa .,:°'� �� . s ° ��'��a��"�?��et��°� � � � �,F'��'�:��:�ra� �+�� a... �.ddkte'��ie9U�� F_-��wt��f�,�Mnw�q yo{ye �r �1�! r e u _�,�p a y Q � q+�.q�,�i � �pR��T� �n�� MM'�'��rr��e �. �ee� •� � � ��,��0,�� .,-. : -�o_ - � . ..�r:.r•, ._„� CITY OF COON RAPIOS 3, ... �� 'T �— � � -� : !TT 7 y',�� . `: {. ,. �RIOLEY . EV °� AUO' U t Q ,j �'.'� �� ''' �', �h � G, � q.�% m� l�0 � i c� s i k i> \ \ �R ��D sLj 49 . .. R� . P� :' G.?� P <2 �`:v. � A D. � � .w�, J�„ 3 �, „ ;r, „IROKT 3T fT .,a. N � H RI .�L , .. �\ ; �� R� U/N �� Vg �� is� �007/ N �� : ^" � x � � .., � .�.�..�:4".. � �t . . - i � ; o � -,�� o �. n y a , � b I r � � ��C � �.� .:,. (e, � � , � m �'F"7 13 0� .1, � �� _ ,, ,., , ,,� � � , , � [�J �rJ �� !J .n �, <w � r, y �:. D: CIRCLE �� v �. d`Cn CEMfR -�_ •. �• sec. e 6� � � � �4�•��:��•��, APPEALS COMMI88ION MEETING� NOVEMBER 12, 1991 _____.,.___..._...__........._......_...___......_____...___..............___......___ __......__.,..........__ _..._ _ CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the November 12, 1991, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Carol Beaulieu Cathy Smith Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Steve Hunger, 14041 Vinewood Lane, Dayton, MN APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 1. 1991. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the October 1, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AY&� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED iJNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #81-33 BY STEVE HUNGER• Per Section 205.04.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of a structure; Per Section 205.07.03.A.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 square feet to 7,460 square feet; Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet; Per Section 205.07.04.B.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum structure size from 768 square feet to 712.12 square feet; To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glenooe Street N.E. l'JJ � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. NOVEMBER 12 1991 PAGE 2 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A o02CE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:01 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at 501 Glencoe Street, west of East River Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There is additional R-1 to the north, south, east, and west of the property; and there is a parcel of C-1, Local Business, zoning located southeast of the property. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that four variances be granted: 1, To allow continued nonconformance of the structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of the structure; 2. To reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. Pt.; 3. To reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet; 4. To reduce the minimum structure size from 768 sq. ft. to 712.12 sq. ft. Ms. McPherson stated that approval of the variances would allow the reconstruction of the existing vacant single family dwelling located on the Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition. The City's records indicate that the single family house has been vacant since June 29, 1990. The petitioner purchased the property from HUD and needs to complete repairs to bring the dwelling unit up to today's zoning and building codes. The repairs include new plumbing, heating, and electrical work. The petitioner is also proposing to enclose an existing alcove and enlarge a portion of the dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated the existing attached single car garage had previously been converted to living area, and the petitioner is proposing to convert that portion back to a single car garage. Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is necessary as the single family dwelling is currently nonconforming with both building and zoning codes. Staff has determined that the proposed repairs exceed 50� of the fair market value of the structure. In addition, as the home has been vacant for more than 12 months. Section 205.04.03.E of the Zoning Code states that any future use oE a nonconforming structure shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code. Therefore, even if the recon- struction did not exceed SOo of the fair market value, the lJll � � APPEALS COMMISSION ME&TING. NOVEMBER 12 1991 PAGE 3 petitioneY would still be required to request variances to correct the side yard encroachment and the minimum lot area as well as the minimum structure size variance. Ms. McPheTSOn stated variance #1 is the most important issue that the Commission will be considering. If the Commission chooses to approve the variance to the 50� threshold, this would allow the structure and the lot to remain nonconforming, and variances #2, #3, and #4 would not be necessary. However, staff recommends that the Commission act on each variance individually whether or not they approve variance #1. Variance #1 Ms. McPherson stated the first variance is to allow continued nonconformance of the structure, even though repairs to the structure constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. The petitioner has proposed an estimate of approximately $12,000 for repairs to the structure. The Building Inspector has determined this estimate to be a materials-only estimate. It is the Building Inspection Department's policy that all estimates on building permit applications include both materials and labor. The Building Inspector estimates that labor usually constitutes approximately 50� of all estimates; therefore, the total amount of repairs is approximately $24,000. The City Assessor has assessed the dwelling at $15,600, 50% of which is $7,800. It is clear that the materials estimate alone far exceeds 50� of the fair market value. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Commission recommend denial of the first variance as the cost of repair does exceed 50% of the fair market value of the structure. Variance #2 Ms. McPherson stated the second variance is to reduce the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. The subject parcel is a platted lot of record and to deny this variance would render the lot unbuildable and would constitute a taking. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that, as a minimum, the Commission recommend approval of this variance to allow either reconstruction of the existing dwelling or construction of a new dwelling on this property. Variance #3 Ms. McPhezson stated the third variance is to reduce side yard setback Prom 10 feet to 4.8 feet to correct encroachment. If the Commission approves the first the 50% threshold, this variance becomes unnecessary the nonconformance to continue. s X the required an existing variance to as it allows � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. NOVBMBSR I2, 1991 PAGE 4 Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that this variance request also be denied as the City would want a new structure to conform the new Zoning Code and would require that a l0 foot side yard setback be maintained for the living area. Variance #4 Ms. McPherson stated this variance is to reduce the minimum structure size from 768 sq. ft. to 712.12 sq. ft. This does include the area the petitioner is proposing to enclose with the existing alcove area. As the petitioner is already proposing extensive construction on the dwelling unit, he does have an opportunity to add approximately 56 sq. ft. needed to bring the structure into conformance with the Code. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Commission recommend denial of this variance request as the petitioner does have the opportunity to enlarge the structure to bring it into conformance with the Code. Staff's Recommendation Ms. McPherson stated the first issue the Commission must decide is whether to allow reconstruction of the existing nonconforming structure, even though the necessary repairs exceed 50� of the fair market value. If the Commission recommends approval of the variance to waive the 50$ requirement variances 2-4 are unnecessary. However, if the Commission recommends denial of the request to the 50� threshold and require the petitioner to construct a new structure on the property, staff recommends that variance #2 be approved in order to allow construction of a new structure on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area. To deny variance #2 would render the property unbuildable. Ms. McPherson stated recommendations are as follows: 1. Recommend denial of variance #1 to allow continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. 2. Recommend approval of variance #2 to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. 3. Recommend denia2 of variance #3 to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet. 4. Recommend denial of variance #4 to reduce the minimum structure size from 768 sq. ft. to 712.12 sq. ft. W � � APPBALS COMMISSION MEETING. NOVEMBER 12. 1991 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the following stipulations as a condition of approval: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1991. 2. The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall install new windows and doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. Mr. Steven Hunger stated he recently purchased this property. He intends to repair the house so that it will blend in with the other homes in the neighborhood. He intends to sell the property after the repairs are made. He does not intend to rent the house. Mr. Hunger stated there are a couple of inaccuracies in the staff report. The square footage quoted by staff for the house is 768 sq. ft. The present square footage of the house is 840 sq. ft. With the proposed additional 56 sq. ft. for the alcove, the house will be at 912 sq. ft. Also, he is not intending to convert living area (the old garage) back to a single car garage. He will be adding a new 12 ft. by 18 ft. garage that will be 5 feet from the neighboring lot line. Mr. Hunger stated he is also concerned about the assessed value on the house. In July 1991, the house was assessed at $27,800 and four months later, it was assessed at $15,600. That is a$12,000 reduction in a four month time period. Is that usual? Ms. McPherson stated this is a question which should be asked of the City Assessor. Mr. Hunger stated the $12,000 is the same figure that Darrel Clark came up with for labor. He stated he has been in construction since 1976, and that amount is not correct. New shingles and siding on a 1,200 sq. ft. house can be framed up for $4,800. He did not know how Mr. Clark had come up with the $12,000 figure. When he first came in for the building permit, Mr. Clark admitted that he had not looked at the house thoroughly. He stated Mr. Clark is a very respected and excellent building inspector, but Mr. Clark should have given him the consideration of going into the house and looking at it, other than taking a$12,000 figure out of the sky. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of this meeting is not to argue over exact numbers. The Commission needs to decide whether or not it is acceptable for the petitioner to bring the structure up to Code no matter what it costs. sZ ., . # � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. NOVEMBER 12, 1991 PAGE 6 Mr. Hunger stated he has a petition signed by most of the neighbors in the area who do not object to his remodeling or variance request. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive the petitions dated November 6, 1991, from the neighborhood who do not object to Mr. Hunger's remodeling or variance request; and to receive a letter from Joan Leonard, 526 Glencoe Street, dated November 5, 1991, stating that she does object to the building being repaired and would prefer it to be torn down and rebuilt. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CFIAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hunger stated labor costs are so arbitrary. If he had known he was working against a market value of $15,600, he could have decided to just could bring the house up to Code without the new vinyl exterior and changing the roofline and stay under,the 50� guideline, but then the house is not going to look nice. He was basing his estimate on the $27,700 market value. Mr. Hunger stated that regarding stipulation #1, there is already a concrete driveway. Ms. Savage stated that since Mr. Hunger is adding a garage, and the house, with the proposed alcove, will be 840 sq, ft. , then variance #4 is no longer necessary. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARZNG CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M.. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to recommend denial of variance #1 to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50% of the fair market value. That is a good ruling, and he did not see any particular hardship for not meeting that rule. He could see no reason in the guidelines the Commission is given to grant this variance. Ms. Savage stated she believed it would be a hardship to deny the petitioner the ability to remodel the home the way he is proposing to do it. Maybe it is best not to set a precedent for other properties by approving variance #1. However, as she understood this variance request, they could deny variance #1, and the petitioner would still be able to make the proposed repairs as long as the Commission recommends approval of variances #2 and #3. The improvement of the house would certainly improve the existing structure and would improve the appearance of the neighborhood, and � . , .. � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 12 1991 PAGE 7 he did not see any reasonableness in requiring the petitioner to tear down the existing house and build a new house. Ms. Beaulieu stated she is confused as to why they should recommend denial of variance �1. It seemed like they should approve variance #1 in order to allow the petitioner to make the proposed repairs to the existing structure. Ms. McPherson stated the principle behind variance #1 is that this is nonconforming structure that needs more than 50% of the market value to bring it into conformance. It does prohibit the petitioner from making those repairs; the structure just needs to be brought into conformance. In this particular case, if the Commission recommends denial of variance #1 and not allow the continued nonconforming items to exist (recommends variance #3 to reduce the side yard setback), the petitioner would have to build a new structure in conformance with the 2oning Code setbacks and requirements. However, if the Commission recommends denial of variance #1 for the 50� rule, but recommends approval the variance to the setback, variance #3, they are eliminating that which is nonconforming as far as the setback. The Code does not say that repairs are prohibited, it is just saying that continued nonconformance is prohibited. Each variance can be handled as separate issues. Dr. Vos stated part of the confusion has to do with the Code putting conditions on variance #1. It has to be a nonconforming structure or use, and the whole 50� is built on a somewhat arbitrary number. Fifty percent of nothing is nothing, but 50$ of 100 is 50. The fair market value dropped $12,000 in four months, and it is difficult for the petitioner to operate with those kinds of numbers. Ms. McPherson stated that staff will resolve the numbers issue prior to the City Council meeting. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend denial of variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger, per Section 205.04.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 500 of the fair market value of a structure; to allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANTMOUSLY. Dr, Vos stated the reason he voted in favor of this ordinance is to avoid setting a precedent to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs constitute more than 50% of the fair market value. � R ♦ � • � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMSER 12. 1991 PAGE 8 MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger, per Section 205.07.03.A.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 square feet to 7,460 square feet; to allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYB� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DSCLARED TAE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger, per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet; to allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992. . 2. The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. UPON A VOICE VOTB� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPSRSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on December 9, 1991. __ UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ITEMS• The Commission members received the update on past Planning Commission and Council items. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Savage declared the motion carried and the November 12, 1991, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Res ectfully su�mitted, � Lyn Saba Rec rding Secretary .�� DATB: TO: FROM: BIIBJECT: � � Community Development Department ��LANNING DIVISION City of Fridley November 20, 1991 Appeals Commission Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Reconsideration,of Commission Action Regarding VAR #91-33, at November 12, 1991, Meeting In reviewing the minutes from the November 12, 1991, meeting, as well as Section 205.04.03.B of the City Code, there appears to be a conflict between the desire of the Commission to allow Mr. Hunger to reconstruct the structure at 501 Glencoe Street and the result of the Commission's action. Section 205.04.03.B states: "Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the upgrading of a nonconforming structure to a safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the City, provided the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty percent (50�) of the fair market value of such structure.° Denial of the variance request to the above code section prevents the petitioner from doing any repairs to the structure. If that is not the intent of the Commission, the Commission should make a motion to reconsider its motion for denial. Then the Commission should make another motion to approve the variance. Mr. Hunger has been advised about at the the November 26th meeting my explanation may have caused. I�I :1 s M-91-830 the confusion and will be present I apologize for any confusion TO: FROM: SIIBJECT: � ASSESSING DIVISION J 1 �L� �� MEMORANDUM u MICHELE MCPHERSON, COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT WALTER MIILCAHY, APPRAISER 501 GLENCOE NE PIN NO. 03-30-24-23-0067 DATE: NOVEMBER 20� 1991 I made a review of this property on June 26, 1991 because a real estate person suggested our E.M.V, was too high due to poor condition. The house was vacant and locked but I could view most of the area through the windows. I could see the sheetrock had holes in it; the floor covering needed replacement; and the roof appeared to have been leaking. It looked as though the structure needed a lot of repair. I added 33% more depreciation which amounted to a $12,200.reduction in value. I could not check the plumbing, heating or electrical systems. If these items needed replacement I would have reduced the value even more. sU ]►PP81►LS �_ • ••� � � CITY OF F$IDLEY ffiBBTIN6, NOVBMBER 26, 199 Chairperson Savage called.the November 26, meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Carol Larry , Appeals Commission Vos, Cathy Smith, Others Present: Mich e McPherson, Planning Assistant St e Hunger, 7890 Apex Lane, Dayton m Carlson, Sawhorse Designers & Builders ick Riley, Sawhorse Designers & Builders Ethel Arnold, 3205 Hilldale N.E., Mpls. Shirley Severson, 6490 Riverview Terrace � Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the 12, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes as written. A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAR7:D THE �N CARRISD IINANIMOIISLY. 1. RECONSIDER ACTION TAKEN ON VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #91-33. BY STEVE HUNGER• Per Section 205.04.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of a structure, To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E. �iOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTS� ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPERSON SAVAGS DECLl1RED THB 1[OTZON CARRI&D AND TH8 PIIBLZC SSARING OPEN l►T 7:31 P.M. 6EE � � � APPEALS CO?!lII88ZON iIEETING 110VEMBER 26 1991 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated that after the discussion at the November 12, 1991, meeting at which there was some confusion over the ordinance section of the Code regarding the request to waive the 50� requirement and allow the repair of an unsafe structure. She stated she again reviewed the ordinance section which states the following: "Nothing in the Chapter shall prevent the upgrading of a nonconforming structure to a safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the City, provided the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty percent (50�) of the fair market value of such structure . " Ms. McPherson stated that at the last meeting, the Commission recommended denial of the variance request to waive the 50� threshold. However, the Commission's discussion indicated that they did want to allow the petitioner to reconstruct the house at 501 Glencoe Street, even though the repairs seem to constitute more than 50� of the fair market value. In rereading the Code section, the Commission's recommendation to the Council would be that the petitioner not be allowed to reconstruct the house. If it was the Commission's intent to allow the petitioner to reconstruct the house, even though the cost is more than 50$ of the value, then the Commission should reconsider its previous motion and recommend approval of the variance request to the City Council. Ms. McPherson apologized for this confusion of staff's inter- pretation of the Code. Ms. Savage stated that at the last meeting, there was some dispute over the actual market value of the structure. Can the Commission consider that the proposed repairs would constitute more than 50� of the market value? Ms. McPherson stated it is staff's interpretation that the proposed repairs do constitute more than 50� of the fair market value. Ms. Savage stated the Commission has to deal with a hardship in order to grant this variance. She asked Mr. Hunger to state his hardship and why he cannot tear down the existing house and rebuiId. Mr. Hunger stated that when he purchased the property, he had two options--to tear down the existing house and rebuild it, or remodel the existing house. He stated he never intended to tear the house down. The foundation and the structure are basically sound, but the house does need a lot of work. Just the cost of tearing the house down, removing the foundation, re-excavating and digging a full basement would be about one-half of what he is intending to spend on the total remodeling. • sFF � ' � � �$PB�LB COMMI88ION ldEBTINa NOVEMBER 26 1991 PAGE 3 Mr. Hunqer stated the interpretation of the first variance is so arbitrary. The numbers can be played so many ways. Originally, he was working with the $27,000 market value in July 1991, and then after he had turned in all his remodeling costs, he found out the house had been reassessed at $15,600. If he had known that there was going to be a$12,000 drop in value, he would have come in with a lesser bid which wouldn't enhance the house so much. Mr. Hunger stated that the only things that are required are the plumbing, heating, and wiring, which he has planned to completely redo. There is no requirement by the City for him to put on vinyl siding, aluminum soffit or facia, new roof, all of which were included in his cost figures. He just did not understand the 50�. Fifty percent of what? Mr. Hunger stated that his hardship is that he just cannot afford to tear down the existing house and rebuild. There is also a young couple who are interested in purchasing the house after the remodeling, and they cannot understand why things are taking so long. o ON by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD 11ND THB PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Ms. Beaulieu stated that, as she understood it, if the first variance is not approved, the petitioner can just do the necessary repairs to bring it up to Code. But, the petitioner has plans to improve the property even more than what is required. It was her understanding at the last meeting that it was the Commission's intent to allow the petitioner to improve the structure as proposed. Ms. Savage stated that was her understanding also. She stated it does not seem reasonable to require the petitioner to tear down the existing house and start all over aqain when he can remodel the house in such a way that it will be an improvement. He also has a prospective buyer, and the house has been vacant since June 1990. Dr. Vos stated he believed the reason the Commission recommended denial of a variance they really wanted to approve was because of the 50$ and what could be done and what couldn't be done. There was some discussion about the market value and the fact that it had dropped over $12,000 over a fairly short period of time, which he believed was part of the hardship for the petitioner. He believed the Commission's intent was for the petitioner to be able to do more than just the plumbing, electrical, and heating. They thought it would be better if the petitioner improved the structure rather than just bringing it up to Code. 6GG �. - � � 1►PP8AL8 CO?BdI88ION MEETING. NOVSMBER 26. 1991 PAGE 4 OM TION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to reconsider the action taken on variance request, VAR #91-33, by Steve Hunger, per Section 205.04.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 508 of the fair market value of a structure, To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E. IIPON I1 VOICS VOTB� ALL VOTING l►YB, CSAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE IiOTION CARRIED IINANZMOIISLY. �SOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance per Section 205.04.03.B of continued nonconformance of to upgrade it constitute mor a structure, To allow the dwelling on Lots 10, il, Addition, the same being 50] request, VAR $91-33, by Steve Hunger, the Fridley City Code, to allow the s structure when the necessary repairs : than 50$ of the fair market value of reconstruction of the single family and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Glencoe Street N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTS� ALL VOTZNG AYE� C$AIRPER80N SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. 2. Per Section 205.2 08.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the setback rom the normal high water line of the Mississippi River fr l00 feet to 87.5 feet, to allow the construction of a thre -season porch addition, on Lot 2, Block 1, Walt Harrier First A dition, the same being 6492 Riverview Terrace N.E. OTIOI3 by Ms. Beaulieu, seconde by Ms. Smith, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice an open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUSLIC HEAR N(i OPEN AT 7C55 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property i located on the Mississippi River and west of Riverview Terrace. The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, as a e the surrounding parcels. The variance request is to reduce the s tback from the normal high water of the Mississippi River from 100 f et to 87.5 feet. Located on the property is a single family welling unit, and the petitioners are proposing to remove an ex'sting deck and replace it with a three-season porch and a new de to the south of the porch. Decks are allowed to encroach up to l0 feet into the setback area. �:�:� � � Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley D71TE: December 4, 1991 TO: William Burns,O'City Manager FROlI: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SIIHJECT: Variance Request, VAR #91-33, by Steven Hunger, 501 Glencoe Street N.E. Attached please find the above referenced staff report. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the following variances: 1. To allow repairs to a structure even though the repairs constitute more than 50� of the fair market value. 2. To reduce the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. 3. To reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet. The following stipulations were made as a condition of approval: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992. 2. The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. Staff recommends that the City Council deny all the variances except to reduce the minimum lot area from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,460 sq. ft. The cost to upgrade the structure clearly exceeds 50g of the fair market value. iIIYI :1 s M-91-864 �J Permit No. Work Type 21063 Reside dwelling 21065 Window trim, soffit, & fascia, gutters 21096 Reside dwelling 21102 Reside house & garage 21104 Soffit & fascia 21106 Recover fascia � 21112 Install 2 bay windows 21113 Reside dwelling 21125 Install windows & reside dwelling 21115 Install bay window & siding, fascia, & soffit 10910 Install furnace 10908 Install furnace 10907 10905 10904 10903 Install furnace Install furnace Install furnace Install furnace 10902 Install furnace 10674 Plumbing 10673 Plumbing 10668 Plumbing 10651 Plumbing 10633 10631 10621 10607 Plumbing Plumbing Plumbing Plumbing Valuation $15,000 $ 3,300 $ 3,500 $ 4,500 $ 2,970 $ 4,000 $ 2,800 $ 4,800 $15,990 $10,298 $ 1,785 $ 2,079 $ 1,300 $ 1,400 $ 1,300 $ 3,010 $ 1,600 $ 1,730 $ 4,465 $ 1,150 $ 3,000 $ 2,125 $ 4,500 $ 1,200 $ 2,100 � r� � ' � � : 4� 11. .1: _:�_ : c • ' 1 : s�i.l: : . . . . ,_ t _ �i. � � • � � / • � � � ' i_ �._—. � • Mr. ibyl, Finance Director, stated since 1988, the disposal charge paid to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission h e increase by 29 percent. He stated it is proposed that the ity increase. e rates by approximately 15 percent. He stated ' the sewer rate are not increased there will be an operating ss of $253,816. Mr. Pribyl stat d that the residential rate is proposed o increase from $24.65 per quarter to $28.35 for single fzmily residential properties and fr m$7.80 to $10.00 per quarter for seniors. He stated that all o ers will be increased from $1.0 /1000 gallons to $1.25/1,000 gal ns, with a minimum billing of $31.25 per quarter based on 25, 0 qallons. Councilman Schneider as d how Fridley's rate compare with other communities. . Mr. Pribyl stated that Columbia Heights is he only community that has a lower sewer rate. Mr. Pribyl stated that the PubT•'c Works Director and his staff are trying to monitor the water inf�ltrat'on into the sewer system. � Mr. Flora, Public Works Direcip , stated that there is a considerable amount of infiltrati and inflow in the pipe. He stated that the Metropolitan Wast Co'ntrol Commission is conducting a study in an attempt to reduc the tinfiltration in the line so that they are dealing with tru sewagea, Councilman Billings stated hat he ai months ago where the puri of the wa plant was discussed. He s ated that if to remove the phosphorus residents can increase by an addition forty percent facility. Mr. Flora stated placed stipulatio� permit to � quality. He MWCC to det� monitor the phosphorus L that phosphq cost invol5/e tended a meeting several te`r, leaving the treatment a f�cility has to be built expe�t the sewer rates to to cover the cost of this �lat the Environmental Protection Agency has �on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's their phosphorus release to drinking water that a pilot plant is being consti�ucted by the the cost to deal with the phosphorus and to ,sippi and Minnesota Rivers to dei�rmine in els. He stated that if the federal governmeat states s needs to be dealt with, there will be cons�,derable to deal with this issue. `� Council n Billings stated that at the meeting he attended, it� stated hat the majority of the phosphorus that is in the se syste is from humans. He stated that humans need phosphorus � � . . . � . �- � . � � . , .� �,,: : . . . . :� z�� > - --- - -- -- - their bodies, but they do not retain it. He sta that even if the phosphorus was eliminated in soap, 75 pe nt is coming from human life. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to a t Resolution No. 101-1991. Seconded by Councilman Billings. MOTION by Councilman deleting the last pa� authority to annual �to amend Resolution No. 101-1991 by which refers to the City Manager having ust sewer rates. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Up a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declarad the motion c ied unanimously. C��7 0 A. CCE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and declared the motion carried unanimously. � i. �Y i� 4i!_ i��..i • I • w�;��1�Ze��1 _ _ - • /.v= C THE SAME BEING 50T G•LFNCOE STREET N E• Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this is a request for several variances; to allow repairs to a structure even though the repairs constitute more than fifty percent of the fair market value; to reduce the minimum lot area from-7,500 to 7,460 square feet; and to reduce the side yard setback from 10 to 4.8 feet. She statad that the new property owners want to make additions to the home, including a garage, and to upgrade the structure to current building codes. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with three stipulations outlined on Paqe 6 of the agenda, which she outlined. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, VAR #91-33, with the following stipulations: {1) the petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992; (2) the petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements; and (3) the petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � � i'RIDLEY CITY �DNCIL 1[882I�t(i OF DSCBl�IiBSR 9. 1991 P]►(�S li MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the minutes of the Appeals_ Commission Meeting of November 12, 1991. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7. APPROVAL OF EXTENSTON OF TRAILER LICENSE TO RMS COMPANY: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that RMS Com any has requested an extension of their trailer licens to April 1, 1992. She stated that staff recommends approval this extension. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the exten ion of RMS Company's trailer license to April 1, 1992. Seconded y Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, May Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 8. APPROVAL OF_REQUEST�� MULTICARE AS�4� .TES AND H�ALTH ONE OSBORNE ROAD• Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated at the City has received a request from the Fridley Medical Ce er and Unity Hospital to silow parking on Madison Street. He s ted that staff has reviewed this request and would support one- our parking on the east side of Madison Street, with no parking n the west side of the street. He stated that this would allow f adequate ingress and egress to the hospitaL MOTION by Councilman Bill'nqs to concur with the staff's recommendation and authori the appropriate department to take action, as quickly as cond' ions allow, to install one hour parking signs on the east side o Madison Street. Seconded by Counailman Schneider. Upon a voi vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried un imously. 9. Mr. Flora, ic Works Director, stated that this resolution adopts the pr osed guidelines for the interim program of wetland regulation. He stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District has taken the osition that they prefer the cities to take over the responsib' ity for wetland management. He stated that within the Six Citi s Watershed District, each city is responsible for its own develop ent and plan management. Mr. ora stated that he recommends adoption of this resolution and fo arding it to the two watershed districts and the Board of Soil a Water Resources to notify them of Council's action. n V � 1+[OTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution N. 102-1991. S conded by Councilman Schneider. IIpon a voice vo ," all voting ay Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimo sly. 10. '�NFORMAL STAT[JS REPORTS: 1 SNb�7 REMOVAL OPTIONS: Mr. Hill,�ctinq City Manager, stated that ity staff is working on options �d alternatfves for snow p2owi operations. Councilman Schne er stated that the ne' hborhood meeting regarding the Orthodox Chur of the Resurrect' n of Christ, Inc. was well attended. He sta ed that no rep sentatives from the church attended the meeti He state that Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, presented s� e history nd cited jurisdictional powers pertaining to land use�s it rel es to churches. Councilman Schneider stat are concerned about the a stated that there is also if it is being used as resolution of the meeti neighbors and Father Magr Mediation Services to tr into a legal situation� to proceed in this dir t the meeting. a ( and He si a� the residents in the neighborhood �dctural changes to the dwelling. He arn about the use of the property and :hurch. He stated that the final an attempt to get some of the o take advantage of the Anoka County rasolve the issues without getting :ate2� that Father Magramm is willing and i'� is now a matter of setting up Mr. Herrick, City A orney, stated tha he was contacted by Father Magramm who reques ed a meeting. He ated that he has no idea what he wants to scuss, but advised hi if he wanted to come to his office this F iday, he would talk to 'm. Ms. Dacy, Comm nity Development Director, tated that she will write a summa regarding this meeting. Mayor Nee stated that he was concerned with t staff inemo regarding the December 4, 1991 Metropolitan Emerge cy Managers Associati n Meeting wheYe the potential for flooding wa addressed. Mayor N e felt that this issue cannot be addressed direct until the Ci Manager returns. He stated that it may be a good ea to send letter to the residents at risk and inform them o the state's concern and the City's plans to deal with the situa 'on should it arise. � � .� _ � ` � � � � a�,roF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY. MN 55432 •(6121 57 1-3450 • FAX (6l2) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Steven Hunger 14041 Vinewood Lane Dayton, MN 55327 Dear Mr. Hunger: December 12, 1991 On December 9, 1991, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #91-33: - To allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary re�airs to upgrade it constitut� more than 50� of the fair market value of �afei To reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 square feet to 7,460 square feet; and To reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet. To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992. 2. The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements.� 3. The petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side and re-roof the entire structure. � � VAR #91-33, Steven Hunger December 12, 1991 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AICP Community Development Director BD/dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by December 26, 199L i � J� Concur ith action taken __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - , ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS �u0�nt Avenue, Anoka, MlnnesoW 55909 Flled by: ❑ ABSTRACT Receipt # ❑ TORRENS CertiflcatelV (0 9�Po2g_ The instrument(s) forwarded onU q�3��%� is/are not acceptable for filing for the reasons listed below: ' ❑ Warranty Deed ❑ Assign Mortgage Q Aff of Survivorship ❑ �uit Claim Deed ❑ Satis/Rel Mortgage ❑ Contract for Deed ❑ Mortgage ❑ Partial Rel Mortgage �J Other !/a�c.�c,.t,e.. Reasons: �� do � � �'� 9 y o � �. �/3/q3 �� •� �i�� '��9 5° . PLEASE NOTE: WHITE OUT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON TORRENS DOCUMENTSI PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WHEN YOU RESUBMIT YOUH DOCUMENTS. NAME�6�� Phone A� (612)323-54 �9 The pink copy of this form will be returned with your filing fee refund chedc. ��'/93 OrIpMwle Doa.n.M cory Phr: R.Iuna copp ew: H. cop�r ' �� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of: ) ) a variance, VAR 0191-33 OWner: Steven J. and Rene J. Hunger CITY CODI�CIL YAOCBED21Ta8 VARIANCE The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 9th day of December , 199] , on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of a structure; to reduce the minimum required lot area from 7,500 square feet to 7,460 square feet; and to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet, all to allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 1Q, 11, and the east one-half of Lot 12, Block H, Riverview Heights, the same heing 501 Glencoe Street N.E. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approval with three stipulations. See City Council minutes of December 9, 1991. STATE OE MINNESOTA ) COUN'DY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF FRIDLEY ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, William A. Champa, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Oxder granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my flf£ice, and ha.ue found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, M'nnesota, in the County of Anoka on the �,vn day of , 19�. DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Variances are valid for a period of one year following considered void if not used within that period. �� .�. -,., . x, . ` °.�4S�A�,j�` `; � o . , �. . �:: • � - -'� : approval ,�ttd s'F'i`'a1.3� �be �`. . V..� .. wL . � `�' . � . `� .. ' �`�: . .. . �; ` ' ; '`.+ �- �� ..�_. .,., ..._.. . _ ... .. ..... - ---- - -- - their bodies, but they do not retai t. He stated that even if � ', the phosphorus was eliminated in ap, 75 percent is coming from human life. MOTION by Councilman Schn der to adopt Resolution No. 101-1991. Seconded by Councilman llings. MOTION by Councilm Schneider to amend Resolution No. 101-1991 by deleting the las paragraph which refers to the City Manager having authority to nually adjust sewer rates. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motio carried unanimously. � VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and r Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12. 1991: A. REPAIRS TO UPGRADE IT CONSTITUTE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE FAru MARRFT VALIIE OF A STRIICTURE• TO REDUCE THE MINIM[JM �OiTTRF.n T.OT ARF.A FROM 7_5A0 SOUARE FFET TO 7.460 SOUARE FEETD TfiE SAME BEING 50Y GLENCOE STREET N.E.: Ms. Dacy, Community Development.Director, stated that this is a request for several variances; to allow repairs to a structure even though the repairs constitute more than fifty percent o£ the fair market value; to reduce the minimum lot area from-7,500 to 7,460 square feet; and to reduce the side yard setback from 10 to 4.8 feet. She stated that the new property owners want to make additions to the home, including a garage, and to upgrade the structure to current building codes. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with three stipulations outlined on Page 6 of the agenda, which she outlined. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, VAR �91-33, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August l, 1992; (2) the petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements; and (3) the petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side, and re-roof the entire structure. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � \ �. FRZDLEY CITY COIINCIL MSSTING OF DBCBZIDBR 9 1991 PAGH li MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of November 12, 1991. Seconded bp Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF TRAILER LICENSE TO RMS COMPANY• Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that Ri�1S C mpany has requested an extension of their trailer lic se to Apri2 1, 1992. She state8 that staff recommends approv of this extension. MOTION by-Gouncilman Schneider to approve the Company�s trailer license to April 1, 1992. Secc Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, 1 the motion carried unanimously. 8. APPROVAL OF RE UE ORM MiJ TICARE ASSO A FOR LIMITED PARK G ON MADISON STREET ETW OSBORNE ROAD• :nsion of RMS by Councilman Nee declared Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, state that the City has received a request from the Fridley Medical nter and Unity Hospital to allow parking on Madison Street. He tated that staff has reviewed this request and would support on -hour parking on the east side of Madison Street, with no park' on the west side of the street. He stated that this wouid allow or adequate ingress and egress to the hospital. MOTION by Councilmari Bi ings to concur with the staff's recommendation and author"ze the appropriate department to take action, as quickly as con itions allow, to install one hour parking signs on the east side f Madison Street. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a vo' e vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried u nimously. 9. Mr. Flora, Pu ic Works Director, stated that this resolution adopts the,pr posed guidelines for the interim program of wetland regulation. He stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District has taken the osition that they prefer the cities to take over the responsib'lity for wetland management. He stated that within the Six Cit' s Watershed District, each city is responsible for its own develo ent and plan management. Mr. lora stated that he recommends adoption of this resolution and f arding it to the two watershed districts and the Board of Soil nd Water Resources to notify them of Council's action. �-.�.;, t; - _ -' • r� L • � _ GiYOF' fRIDLEY i � . i � i FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UMVERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55432 •(6121 57 1-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Steven Hunger 14041 Vinewood Lane Dayton, MN 55327 Dear Mr. Hunger: December 12, 1991 On December 9, 1991, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance, VAR �91-33: To allow the continued nonconformance of a structure when the necessary repairs to upgrade it constitute more than 50� of the fair market value of a structure; To reduce the minimwn xequired Iot area from 7,5Q0 square feet to 7,460 square feet; and To reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 4.8 feet. To allow the reconstruction of the single family dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block H, Riverview Iieights Addition, the same being 501 Glencoe Street N.E., with the following stipulations: `,�The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992. � .,f The petitioner shall upgrade the structure to meet current building code requirements. The petitioner shall install new windows and exterior doors, re-side and re-roof the entire structure. � . VAR #91-33, DecembeY 12, Page 2 Steven Hunger 1991 If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AICP Community Development Director SD/dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by December 26, 1991. Concur with action taken