Loading...
AF-V - 47879� � �� ._ .a ,.� �.,_ � � .� F. ,� _ a' t ` -; , t , CO'il� OF IFRIIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.� FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 PlOTICE OF PUQLIC NEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)5T1-3450 September 28, �979.. Notice is hereby yiven that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a puol�ic hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M, on Tuesday, p��Q��,� 9��� 1�r7�..,_ in:rega�^d �q th.e. . following: - Reqaest for var�1ances pursuant tQ Ch�ptet^ 2Q.5 of the Fri�dley CZty Code, t� �reduce t6_e fr'�nt y�rd set6ack from tfi_e required 35 feet, t� 25 feet on Lot 1�. �lock. 2, �Heath.er Hills TFti;rd Additfion, the same be��ng 1490: Rice Creetc� Ur•�ye� and to reduce the finont yard set�ack tq 30 feet,, on Lot 2, B1 ock 2, Heather Hi 11 s Th_i rd Addi�ti'on:�. �Ghe same being 148Q Rice`Creek D�i:vex �nd reduce the front yard set6ack to 25.feet on Lot 5� 81pck.2� Heather Hi71s Tfiird Addi�ion, the s�me �e1ng� 6150 Kerry Lane N.E; � �; • � .. Notice is hereby gi��e that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNA�E�. CHA I R4JOMAN APPkAL$ �QMMI$�$;IQ�J Nqte; Th.e Apped1s.Conlmission will hav� the final action on this request. � unles� there are objections from surrounding neigh6ors, the City Staff, or t6e petitior�er does not agree ►��ith the Cammission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Cauncil through the Planninc� Comnission with only a reconunendation fra►ii the Appeals Com�nission. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane I1. E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Item �2. • 1����,(���� . Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on publia right of way. Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARD5HIP: "To be in line wi.th other h�nes and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: . �nese three lots are all on the southerly ai de of the cul-.de-�.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding the�e three, have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of Lot 1 there is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of th e differences in setbaaks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The useable back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the back of the land is quite steep. 0 A . A - CALL TO ORDER• -CITX OF FRIDLEY . , ` Chafrwoman Schnabel called the October 9, 1979, meeting of the Appe s Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROI.L CALL • Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Plemel, . Gabe1, Mr. Barna Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Building Ins � .NiLY:J.�,��ary���`�`����_] MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. �rna that the Appeals Coumnission minutes.of ._ September 18, 1979, be approved witJ��the following corrections: Ms. Schnabel noted on �age 10, e 6th paragraph from the botton, the word "with" should be added to the sente e, "Ms. Schnabel said with the exGeption ..." On page 11, tha 5th para aph from the top, the waxd precedent was spelled wrong. On the same page, be een the lOt� and llth paragraph, Ms. Schnabel asked to have the following expl ation inserted. "Mr. Moravetz stated that the CouncilmerabEr ior this war.d had re ested through the City Manager's office that this item come beiore ihe Ci.ty Counci ." UPCN A VOICF,/�10TF, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHN�,BEL.DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLX� Ms. Sct�fabel a,ked the petitioner for ite;n one on the agenda if he would mind beir�g plac�,�'secorid on the agenda. She explained, Mr. 0'Bannon, the second petitioner, had an 8:00 meeting at the County. Mr. Holst�n, representi.ng item one, agxeed to the change. • , r 1. ��4UESTS FOR VARI.EINCES PURSUAi1T TO CIiAPTSR �05 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE. Tn 12E- DUCE TH� FfiON� YARD SETBACK FROTi THL REQtTIP,ED 35 FEET, TO 25 FEET ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, flLA'i'HER H.I.LLS THIRD AI3DI;ION___�______'?'HE S�� E�II�iG 1490 RICE CRE�K DT{IVr N.E., AIvD TO RrL�UCE THF I�RUNT YAt2D ��?'�ACK TU 30 FEET ON LOT 2 L BLOCK 2, iiEATHER HILLS TfiIRD AnD�TION, TH� SArSE I3EINC, 1480 F.I:iaE CREEK DRl'VE N.E.,_ AND RE�U�E THE FRO�T YA1Zb SET}�.A�K. J'0 25 F}.�T ON LOT 5, BLOCK ?2 IIEA'1'�:ER. HILLS THIKi� AllDTTIaN, THF S.�NI� BF.ING 61.�0 i�E:iRY Zt11�TE N.E., (Request bv Psike 0'Bann.on� 5298 Fi.11more Street, N.E_„ Fridley, MN 55421). � MOTIOAT by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel �o open the Public Hearing. UPON 1� V4ICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG Ai'E, CHAIRkTOMAN SCH�IABEL DECLA}�A TH� MOTION CARRI�D Ui�ANZl�1bi1SLY. PUBLIC HF:�ILING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. • , � -�:�s�.�z 0 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING`OCTOBER 9,, 1979 PAGL �� ' Chairwoman Schnabel read�the staff report: , ADMINISTI211TIVE ST11FF F1�PORTS . � 1490 Ri.ce Creek Drive N.E. � 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerxy Lane li. E. A. PUl3LIr PURPOSE SERVED B'� REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, AA, requires a front yard setback Qf 35 feet. Pub2ic purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on publia right of way.-��Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "builcling line of sight" encroacl�¢nent into a rieiqhbar's f�ont yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "9b be in line wi.th other ho�nes and to allow room for back yards." �. ADNliI�tISTRATIVE STAF� REVIEW: Tlzese three lats are all on th e southerly side of the cul-.�e�.sac joining �:rarx_y Lane and Ri.ce Creek Drive. The other lot-.s, surrounding thes�e three, have v�.iying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 iias a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of %ot 1. thexe is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The .�sc:able back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the bac:k of the land is quite steep. Ms„ Schnataei. astced Da�r�2 CZark if he had any further comments ta make on this item. F Mr. Clarlc said no, he felt the attaehed map should answer any questions. Ms� Schnabel said with all the various numbers and writings on the map, it gets a li t�:le confusing, and asked Mr. Clart� i:o go over the area. Y4Ix. Claxk said the existing home on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, the proposed home on 7.,ot S would ba b�ck 25 feet. The homp, under consL-ruction, on Lot 4, was setback 5�1 ��et. Lot 3 had a previous v�xiance �xanted for a 26.5 foot setback. The proposed home on Lo�: 2 would have a 30 foot setback a.nd a 25 feet setback on Lot 1. He pointed aui: the house left of I.ot l and not on the diagrazn was setback 38 �eet. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr.. 0'Bannon, for cornn�ent�. kIe said t}�e �rawing sets up what he prop�ses. He has set each house st�ep by step axound the cul-de-sac. I�e said Lot � will have a sm�ll backyard because of a steep , 0 ' APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING,, OCTOB�R 9. 1979 _ _ __ ______—_-__PAGE 3 drop-off on the lot. Both Lots 1 and 2 have backyardsthat go into a cliff. • Ms. Schnabel said she was not aware of .the drop-off on Lot 5. Mr. Kemper asked where the house to the east of Lot 1 was placed in compaxision with � the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. 0'Bannon said the garage of the house east of Lot 1 would line up with the outer- most front edge of the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. Claxk sealed the home home location for the Commission. Mr. Kemper said Mr. d'�Bannon does have a hardship. There was a drop-off on Lot 5 and both Lots 1 and 2 have a cliff in the backyard. The house on Lot 3 had a similar request about a year ago. Ae felt Mr. 0'Bannon had been able to compromise lining up the homes on the cul-de-sac and has done a good job of makirig them look nice. Ms. Schnabel said she was concerned about the setback on Lot 5, The garage on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, with the house back even further. She thought the setback on Lot 5 could be more then 25 feet. There are no windows on the home on Lot 6 on this s ide, but there was a deck, so the placement should not bother them. On Lot 4,.there was a window in the front portion, but even that should not create a visual p�oblem.. Mx. Kemper asked how much room was in the backyard 3.f the proposed home was setback at 25 feet. Mr. 0'Bannon said there would be a 25 foot backyaxd. Ms. Ga.bel asked if the drop-off would:be`terraced.. � Mr. 0'Bannon said they are planning on leaving it in its natural state. Mr. Kemper suggested discussing each lot separatly. . Mr. 0'Bannon c:�plained h� sighted the house on Lot 1 wit�► the one to the east, that was how he came up with the 25 foot setback. Mx. Ke�►per said the line of Eight looked okay between the 3 houses on Lots 1 and Z and the one to the east. He felt there were no visual problems and had no objections to the setbacks for Lots l and 2. Ms.'Schnabel said she understood the backyard problems on Lot 5, but did nat like the idea of having , this house so much closer to the street then the neighboring homes. Mr. 0'Bannon said the house on Lot 4 was not setback 50 feet, it was closer to 45 feet. He also said when placing a home on a lot in this type of a situation, he trie5 to place it in the middle of the neighboring homes. You would not want Lot 5 to be Lot 6's backyard. Ms. Schnabel said that was true, but there were no windows on this side of Lot 6. Mr. 0'Bannon said there was a deck located there. � AYPEALS COMMISSION MEETZNG. OCTO�ER 9, 1979 PAGE 4 M�. 8chnabel asked if there were any comments fram staff regarding the set:back. She understood, when talking to the Planning bepartment, there had been a comment m�de. She was referin� to the staff review sheet. Mr. Clark said the only comment was by Jerry Boardman. He said fie did not see any real. hardship, but the hills�de does cut down the amount of rear yard. . . Ms. Schnabel questioned the size of the boulevards. Mr. Q'Bannon replied they are 10 feet cm the straight street, and 7 feet on the cu1- de-sac street. Mx. Kemper asked if it would be possible to an�e the home on the lot, or would that cxeate a problem with the side yar.ds. Mr. 0'Bannon replied anglin� the home ��ould create other problems. He stated as the house is proposed, there are no problems with the side yards. He stated a L-shaped rambler would not work because the back of the house would be on the edge of the drop-off. M�r. Barna asked how much the drop-off was. . Mr. 0'Bannon stated 15-20 feet. You cannat climb the hill easily. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOiCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C�TAIR�70MAri SCHNABEL DECLAFED TiiE MOTION CARRxED UIti.�IVIMOUSLY. PU�LIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Kemper said he sees no real problem with the requests, but acknowledges that �.�e Chairperson o�as concerned about the setback on Lot 5. Ms. Schnabel said her main concern was.Lot 5. She felt Lots l and 2 would fit in, and there was definitely a backyard probtem w�ith the hill. Lat 3 was previously granted �.siu�ilar variance request and fits inta the neighborhood nicelyi so these should als�. She had objected to Lot S's var.iance request t�ecause �irst of all, she �aas not aware of the drop-off in the backyard and secand2y, was 1ed to believe there was an objec- t ion by staft on this request. She said when reading rhe staff ravie�a report tonight, she doe� not detect that and has no prob2em with it now. , Mr.. Clark asked Mr. 0'Bannon when he woulc� be building. Pir, 0`Bani�on stated he would like to dig Lot 5 this fa1Z, but was nnt sure. Se felt one of the lots w4uld b� started this fall. Ms. Gabel said she would be c�ncexned about the setback on Lot 5 if the street was straigYit. Secondly, she felt,,maii,y variances have had to be granted in fihis area be- cause of topographical reasons and these requests were �onsistent with those.. She also feit the area looked very niGe. Mr. Kemper and Mr. Plemel both agreed that Mr. 0'Bannon had done a good ,jcrb in tihe area. MO�ION by Mr. Kempex, seconded by Ms. Gabel to approve the request for variances pur- suant to Chaptex 205 of the.Fri�ley City� Code, to reduce the front yard setback from l�PPL?AI•S COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 ., PAGE 5 _ _ �+►,.�_ , the required 35 feet, to 25�feet on Lot 1, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and to reduce the front yard setback to 30 feet on Lot 2, Block 2, Heather Hills � Third Addition, and reduce the front yard setback to 25 feet on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition. % UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY. Chairwoman Schnabel informed Mr. 0'Bannon he could apply for his permiCs immediately since this commission had final action on his requests. 2.\REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY, TO REDUCE THE SQUAiZE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOT SIZE FROM THE RF�UIRED 9,000 SQiiAR.E FEET TO DIV IS Inc., MOTION by Mr. '0 SPLIT OFF LOT 1 1. LYING EAST OF THE EAST.90 , THE SAME BEING 7562 AND 7584 ABLE STREET N,E Townview Avenue N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55418). , seconded by Mr. Barna to open the public hearing. FFER'S SUB- t by Exemplar, UPON A VOIGE VOTE, L VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PUBLIC ING OPENED AT 8:00 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel A. PUBL,I staff xeport: �bMINISTFIITIVE STAFr RrPORT 562 I►ble Street N.E. �5E3� Able Street N.E. RPOSE SERVED BY RI�OUII2�NT: Section 205.053, 1, lot area require� for a resideni�ial.. B. STATED HARDSHIP: of not less than 9,000 square feet `�ot. "Lot split inL-o Lot 1 and Lot 2 approved. Requ es variance to area requirement. Lot is low (2-3 feet below street g de) and has sevexal fe�t of peat on top of bearing soil. Established a a of smaller homes is not conducive to expensive home on one lot. Prope y owners within required disiance notified of lot split but did not att d Planning Commission meeting." �-� _ ;, ..__ . . - _ .� , .. � . ... .. . - . :. .. . _ .: . . . C. AI�IINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIL•'4�T: xhe 1ot split request approval was recomm�aided �o t-he City Council the Flanning Commission on Septeml�er 2G, 1979 that would establish th e building sites. This land is on the corner o£ 76th Avenue and Able Stre t and both building sites would face onto �le Str��t. The lots would be 94.2C and 93.88 feet deep with 80 foot frontages and the proposed buildings wauld roeet all �f the Code requirements for setbacks. The majoxity of the lots in this area are considerably larger than th ese would be if t.he lot split is approved.