Loading...
VAR 06.23.78Mr• Holden showed the Commission an aerial view of the area in question. Mr. Holden cautioned the Gunnick's about the water table in the area. He told them to use precautions in planning their basement. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:54 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the request for variance to the Firdley City Code, Section 205.053,4,C, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 34 Feet 11/4 of the lot depth} to 21.6 Feet, to allow the construction of a house and garage on the South 135± Feet of Lot 22, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside, The same being 7677 Arthur Street NE, Fridley, Minnesota. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.053,4,C, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 28.27 FEET to 10 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT 3, BLOCK 5, RICE CREEK TERRACE ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6760 MADISON STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN. {REQUEST BY MR. & MRS. GERALD D. BETHEL, 6760 MADISON STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN}. Chairperson Schnabel explained that it had been requested that they hear the request that evening even though Public Notices had not been sent out and the request had not been published. She said that the petitioner received from City Hall a list of the people that would be the effected property owners. The petitioner went to the property owners and asked them to sign a notice of public hearings. She read the petition wording into Public Record, "We the undersigned waive our rights to the traditional ten day notice of public hearing for variance request on a property located near the corner of Jefferson and Madison Streets NE, the address being 6760 Madison Street NE. Legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 5, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 6. The variance request is to Code Section 205.053,4,C, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 28.27 feet to ten feet. We understand that this matter will be presented before the May 23, 1978, meeting of the Board of Appeals and there will be a Public Hearing. Our signature here does not necessarily mean our approval of this request, but merely notification of the Public Hearing." Ms. Schnabel indicated that 26 people had signed the petition. Mr. Kemper wanted to know why the request was proceeding in this manner. Mr. Bethel said that it was due to a misunderstanding on his part. He said he wasn't aware that a variance had to be obtained. He said that he had already contracted with a person to dig the basement, however, the equipment broke down and the work hadn't been completed. He said that he didn't want to have to wait until the middle of June because the person had the equipment repaired and would be able to start work around the first part of June. He pointed out that the Appeals Commission's next meeting wasn't until June 13, 1978. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 23, 1978 Page 4 ' Mr. Bethel indicated that he planned to subcontract the work on the addition. He said that the process of sub -contracting was usually time consuming. He wanted to be able to have enough time to have the addition completed by winter. He said that he'didn°t want to start, any type of scheduling of the contractors until he had final approval. Mrs. Bethel said that she had taken the petition around to the neighbors. She said that she explained exactly what the petition was saying as well as asked each person to read the petition before signing.. She said that she brought the plans along with her and showed it to the people. She said that the only person that had showed concern was a neighbor who was to the back of their property. She said that he was relieved when he saw the plans. She said that presently when anyone used the rear door, they looked directly on the neighbors deck. She said that in the new plans, that rear door would be -moved and the entire wall would be solid with a fireplace. She said that the neighbor liked the plans. She said that she indicated to each person that they should appear at the Public Hearing if they had any questions or concerns Mr. Kemper said that he had a problem with the manner the request was being put through the process. He did not feel that the Appeals Commission should have final approval on this type of hurry -up request. He said that he realized that the Appeals Commission did have authority to act on R-1 requests; however, he said that the approval was given to the Commission by City Council with the intent that there would be due process and an appropriate length of time for publication and notification. . Chairperson Schnabel explained to the Bethel's that the Appeals Commission was authorized and governed only to act under certain rules which the City had established. She said it was for the protection of property owners adjacent to areas where variances were being requested. She said that the Appeals Commission was not allowed to circumvent those situations. She said it was not in their discretion to have people appear before the Board on the evening of the meeting with a request without having some prior notification given to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Schnabel felt that the notice that Ms. Bethel took through the neighborhood was specific in that it did indicate that a public hearing would be held on May 23, 1978. She said it had also been evident in the notice that by signing the petition the people were aware of the fact they were not giving their approval, only that they had been properly notified. Mr. Holden indicated that the neighbors actually got a personal invitation to appear at a. Public Hearing regarding the variance request. He felt it was probably more effective than the mailed xerox type of notices. Mr. Kemper said that the Appeals Commission mistakenly acted on a previous request for variances handled in the like manner. He said that the people had misrepresented their request to the neighbors and the neighbors signed the petition and no one appeared at the Public Hearing. He said that when the house was constructed, the neighbors were upset because that was not what they had been told would be built on that property. He did not feel the Appeals Commission should take the responsibility of acting on the particular request because of the manner it was being handled. �iYrt�L1L:� (iufll''11 �ia1V1V N11SPITIAU - MAY c�, y(o rape Mr. Holden pointed out that .request was,for an addition to an request referred to was regarding it was somewhat different in that the already existing house. He said the a new dwelling. Chairperson Schnabel again explained to Mr. & Mrs. Bethel that under normal cir.cumstances the Appeals Commission did have the final approval -providing -that there was a unanimous decision by the Commission, provided that Staff concurs with their decision, and provided that there were no objections.from any of the adjacent neighbors. She said that if any..: of the provisions were not met, then the item would have to go on to the. City Council for their final decision. She said that Mr. Kemper was questioning whether the Appeals Commission should actually have the final decision in this type of situation. She said he was concerned that all the adjacent neighbors were properly notified. Mrs. Bethel said that she understood what was being said. She said that her major concern was the fact.that they did want to start construction as soon as possible. She said that they had to work around all the other contractor schedules and that it could be a timely thing. She said that she did indeed tell each person that they were only signing the petition to indicate that they had been notified of the Public Hearing. She explained that they could voice any opinions at the Public Hearing. Mr.',Keml5er asked if any of the other members had the concern on the item that he had. Mr. Holden said that if the item was delayed until the June 13, 1978, meeting, additional notices would not be sent out. He said the manner that Mrs. Bethel handled the notification would surfice as official notification , unless requested by the Commission to mail notices. Mr. Barna said that he felt it would be within the Appeals Commission's bounds to act on this item. Ms. Gabel said that 'she was somewhat uncomfortable with the request. However she said that it did clearly state in the petition that the residents were waiving their rights to ten-day notice. She really felt that people would pay more heed to the verbal notification than they did to copy of the notice being sent to their houses. Mr. Plemel said that the petition did seem clearly stated. Chairperson Schnabel said that as a matter of practice she didn't like to see the normal procedure bypassed. However, she did feel that in the particular case the petitioners did present a very specific petition. She felt much more comfortable with the particular request being discussed than she had with previous requests that had been handled in like manner. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 232 1978 !)are 6 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to receive the petition indicating that the 26 neighbors had been notified of the May 23, 19789 Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel indicated that all the names had been verified by City Hall to be valid names. Mr. Bethel explained to the Commission exactly what he planned to do. He said that the point closest to the lot line would be approximately 12 feet. Mr. Bethel -had a set of actual plans to show to the Commission. He also had a verified survey. Mr. Holden showed an aerial -view map of the area in question. Chairperson Schnabel said that the Bethel's stated hardship on the application had been, "Planned family size had increased since the home had been purchased in 1967, resulting in inadequate space in the kitchen, eating area, and family room. We could not find adequate home we could afford, and we did not want to move out of Fridley." Chairperson Schnabel. asked if there would be full basement under the addition, Mrs. Bethel said that there would be a full basement under the proposed addition. Chairperson Schnabel asked what percent lot coverage would result with the proposed addition. Mr. Holden said that it would result in 21% lot coverage. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 P.M. APPEALS COMMzISSION MEETING - MAY 239 1978 Page 7 MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the request for variance to the Fridley City Code Section 205.053,4,C, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 2A.27 feet to 12 feet, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing house on Lot 3, Block 5, Rice Creek Terrace Addition, the same being 6760 Madison Street NE, Fridley, -MN. Upon',a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Schnabel explained what had transpired at the Planning Commission regarding the Energy Commission. She said that it was planned to put a notice in the paper indicating the formation of an Energy Commission and asking any person in Fridley that had some knowledge and interest in the Energy issue to submit a resume to City Hall for consideration. She said that the item had been continued to the Planning Commission's next meeting at which time the goals and objectives would be set and resumes would be considered. Mr. Holden said that that an article for the Newsletter would be submitted to the Appeals Commission for their approval regarding required setbacks, etc. He felt that it would be helpful if the people in Fridley were made aware of exactly what they had to do if they planned to put additions onto to their existing homes as well as the procedures that had to be met to construct a new dwelling. Mr. Plemel was concerned about the excessive signage located at the Caballero. He said it was starting to look "tacky". Ms. Gabel agreed. She said that there were too many signs located at that corner (Osborne Road & University Avenue). Mr. Holden said that he would forward their comments onto to Mr. Boardman. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barnal to adjourn the May 23, 19781 Appeals Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the meeting was adjourned at 9;00 P.M, Respectfully submitted, MaryLee Carhill Recording Secretary I Boa WOW cl) 3-,C7KNAjr/' 7 o . 12 7674,u2 i FRIDLEY ' t + ay 130ARD OF APPEALS EXHIBIT Nc f—. MEETING DATE i t Boa WOW cl) 3-,C7KNAjr/' 7 o . 12 7674,u2 i FRIDLEY ' t + ay 130ARD OF APPEALS EXHIBIT Nc f—. MEETING DATE