SP 03.75O
City of M-idle'y
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
HE.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
' PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
L...._�: �•! 612•56t.1-350
SUMJkGi . 1 _
APPLICATION TO BOARD
OF APPEALS
HUMMER
910-F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE
1
OF
2
JAPPROVED by
800
Name Address
e ��� a'
Phone
7 a /,W/e
Legal
Description
Lot No.
Block No.
Tract or Addn.
Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property
showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)
j
Date
Meeting Date
Fee
e
0•a�
Receipt No.
Signa ure
Comments & Recommendations by
the Board of Appeals
City Council Action and Date
k2
r
r
City of Fridley
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
s ,
- ------COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r L PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
1
` __-+� ��^"'f;'� CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
It
612-550-3450
sua�ctr
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF
(Staff Report)
`
APPEALS
NUA-IIE.R
910--F23
REV.
1
DALE
3/21/75
PAGE OF
2 2
APPNOVtU UV
800
Staff Comments
Board members notified of meeting by
date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to
Name
1q,9
attend hearing
List members,
Plan
Date To Attend
Pearson making appeal and the following property owners ha ing property within
feet .notified: "'�-��2f sA V By whom
Flo Name DMY 01 Pho Mail Not' ied
v Q
Ss
°-
JA-A�j A-) joajaull j 2n -
s -
6 jlAk-rdi AA -d? CSU -
_,JQo -Lt
(aL,3O - c2nck
I U
J S� -��irl
,U ,
P
(00-21 `tom ru
N
A
Page 3B
REVISED EXHIBIT "A"
r� Plan Adopted by Appeals Commission
and Agreed to by Petitioner
4
& D 3s.
PROFOSV.D DQW?'"ev-
Tx.Nxm-?V, YAR-�C.\hCo 1�R-►i \xi
4E 3OR.c>W-xL%b w/ ,jyctrt;
CUV-4 �rwposrxtd
r
N
A
Page 3B
REVISED EXHIBIT "A"
r� Plan Adopted by Appeals Commission
and Agreed to by Petitioner
4
& D 3s.
PROFOSV.D DQW?'"ev-
Tx.Nxm-?V, YAR-�C.\hCo 1�R-►i \xi
4E 3OR.c>W-xL%b w/ ,jyctrt;
CUV-4 �rwposrxtd
FKIDLEx APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 13, 197.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Barna, Pat Gabel, Dick Kemper
MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Schnabel, Jim Plemel
OTHERS Pi&SENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Gabel at 7:29 P.M.
APPROVAL , OF JUNE 291 1976. APPEALS .COrtMISS ION . MINUTES :
Chairperson Gabel, stated that this item would have to wait until the next
meeting of the Appeals Commission as non: of the members had received their
copies of the minutes.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to table the approval of the June 29, 1976
Appeals Commission minutes until the next scheduled meeting. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (31B) FRIDLEY CITY
CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PAhKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING
4-PLEX, ZONED R-2 .(r.%TO k-91ILY Dlv'ELLING AREAS) , LOCATED ON LOPS 14 AND 15,
BLOCK 6, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer, 6501 741-2 Avenue North,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55.28).
2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (3,B) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO
ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEK,
ZONED R-2 (Th:O FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 61
CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 380 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY- MINNESOTA.
(Request by Mr. & Mrs. James Johnson, 621 Bennett Drive N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota, 55432).
ALSO: Both these variance requests are also asking to be allowed an
encroachment into City boulevard with a parking lot, as restricted
in the City Code, Section 205.155, (3).
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADAINISTRATIVE STAFF.REPORT
390 57th Place N.E.
J A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMEr%T: Section. 205.065, 3,B. No parking
stall shall occupy any portion of the required front yard.
Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual
pollution in the front yard.
FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13.. ly(b rxvc c
B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner advised by the City Engineering Department
that provision had been made to continue access to these existing stalls,
but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate
variance.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Depressed curbing was installed in the front
of this 4-Plex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineer-
ing Department, because waiting for the processing of this variance request
would have been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner
was requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curbing would be
replaced by regular curbing. The apartment has 3 two-bedroom and 1 single
bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The garage in
the rear, facing 57th Avenue N.E., has 4 parking stalls. It is located
Ito ft. from the curbing on 57th Avenue with approximately 10 feet of
boulevard. This would possibly allow for parking in the rear driveway
without parking in the street right-of-way. (Those with two cars could
park the second car outside, behind their garage stall). In addition, the
4-Plex apartment building next door to the :Fest is 46 feet from the building
at 390 57th Place. This area could be used as a joint parking area to help
alleviate the front yard parking problem. Diagonal parking with a drive!V
from front to rear could be installed. This would require a joint agreement
with the neighbor to the leTest.
In as much as the neighbor to the West is scheduled before the Appeals
Commission with a similar request at the next meeting, Staff recommends
that the Commission discuss this issue, and postpone a decision until both
requests can be considered simultaneously.
Staff feels that a viable alternative to this front yard parking can be
worked out in this case.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
380 57th Place N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.065, 3, B, prohibiting
parking in the required front yard.
Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual
pollution in the front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP: The petitioner was advised by the City Engineering Depart
ment that provision had been made to continue access to the existing parking
stalls, but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate
variance.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVI0;7: Depressed curbing was installed in the front
of this It-Plex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineer-
ing Department, because waiting for the processing of the variance request
would have been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner
was requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curbing would be
replaced by regular curbing. The apartment has three 2 -bedroom and one
" " FRIDLEY APPEALS CUM61ISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976
PA UE 3
single bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The
C' rear of the lot, fronting on 57th Avenue N.E., has depressed curbing and
stalls to accommodate 4 cars. 380 57th Place has no existing garage
facilities. A majority of the tenants.use the existing front yard parking
stalls.
The area in the front yard, which is being used for parking, involves a
15.5 foot boulevard. Staff pictures show that the entire 15.5 foot
boulevard is being used for parking. Parking in a boulevard is in violation
of the City Code, Section 205.155, 3. It is apparent that in order to allow
parking.to continue in the boulevard, the Fridley City Council would have
to allow an encroachment into the boulevard for parking purposes, as well
as 4pprove a variance request for parking in the front yard. Attached please
find a memo from Torn Colbert, Assistant City Engineer, to Ron holden,
Building Inspection Officer, regarding the concerns of the Engineering
Department in this matter.
Staff feels th at'although this petitioner has less available space than
his neighbor at 390 57th Place N.E., in which to provide the required
parking, an alternative parking system could be arranged. A larger parking
area in the rear would be one possible solution. A joint parking arrangement
between the two buildings, incorporating diagonal parking, would be another.
Staff feels that any and all alternatives should be considered before granting
the variance request.
Chairperson Uabel read the following memo to Ron Holden from Thomas Colbert
C dated July 9th, 1976 on the subject of variance requests at 390 and 380 57th
Place:
In conjunction with.t3oard reviewal of the above referenced variances,
some additional information has been derived for consideration in dis-
position of tnese requests.
Should the requests be denied, the City would replace the existing
depressed driveway opening with a normal curb and gutter section at a
cost estimated to be approximately $1,000.
If the requests are granted, and front yard boulevard parking is allowed,
a maximum encroachment onto the public right-of-way allowed by the
Engineering Division would be 10.5 feet. This would leave approximately
5 feet of boulevard behind the curb for snow storage and would insure
against any potential for damage to parked vehicles by snow removal
equipment.
In addition, if the above mentioned encroachment is allowed, the Engineering
Division strongly recommends that it be granted wiuh the following stipula-
tion:
"This encroachment shall be considered null and void should use of this
encroached area be deemed necessary by Council action for any public
utility, transitory, or other public interest need. Upon nullification,
reapplication shall be required to renew existing variance and encroachment."
FRIDLEY APPEALS (;UMMISSION ME TING OF JULY 13f 1976 PADS 4
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Neururer were not at the meeting. Mrs. James Johnson was ,
present to explain her request.
Chairperson Gabel explained that the owners of 390 57th Place were to be present
so the two items could. be handled together, but they were not in attendance.
She asked how many cars the tenants had at 3bO 57th Place, and Mrs. Johnson
said that the two-bedroom units usually had two cars and the single unit usually
one. Mrs. Mabel said then there would usually be seven cars there, anct Mrs.
Johnson said that was correct. Mrs. uabel asked if their property went over
to the end of the Fence, and Mrs. Jonnson replied that it did.. Mrs. Gabel
asked how wide the lot was, and Mr. Holden said that both the lots at 380 and
390 were 80, wide. Mrs. Gabel asked if they had considered doing something in
the back to provide more parking, and Mrs. Johnson said they,hadn't as most
people preferred going in the front door.
Chairperson Gabel'said she noticed there would be some trees lost if an alterna-
tive parking.situation was created. Mr..Barna said that the trees were quite
old, and there would be some hedges lost also. He added that there were many
children, on bikes, etc., in that area. Mr. Holden asked how close the trees
were to the West property line, and Mrs. Johnson replied they were almost right
to it. Mrs, Gabel noted that the buildings appeared to be well kept up, and
said it would be nice, aesthetically speaking, if there could be parking in the
rear.
Mr. Holden said at the last meeting he had suggested a parking area between the
two buildings, but Mrs. Johnson said she didn't believe the other owner would be
agreeable to that as he would be giving up a lot of property. She added that
there would be no yard area. 11r. Barna asked if the renters were usually young
couples, and Mrs. Johnson said they were usually young people just starting out
in life. Mr. Barna noted there was quite a slope between the two buildings, also.
Mr. Holden agreed, and said it was less than an ideal solution. He asked if
Mr. heururer had contacted Mrs. Johnson, and she replied he had not.
Mr. Kemper stated he felt there were two choices: 1) The variance could be
denied, and if that decision was upheld by the Council then regular curbing
would be put back in front of 380 and 390 and the people who live there would
find places to park in the street or behind the building. 2) Leave the depressed
curbing in front to permit off-street parking, and incorporate the provisions
stated in Mr. Colbert's letter. In this event, part of the solution would be to
insist that some sort of curbing be installed in front to delineate or define a
parking area.
Mr. Barna stated that 380 was not unique in the City of Fridley as he had driven
around and found about five other 4-Plexes with similar problems. He stated that
one he had seen didn't even have a driveway in back, and a number of other
buildings in the City are using front parking facilities now. lie said that his
question to himself was could they grant one variance because of hardship and not
another one because there was a road in back. Mr. Kemper suggested that each
hardship should be weighed on its own merits. Mr. Barna said that they would be
setting a precedent, and his personal feeling was that in a properly arranged
front -yard where there was enough room, it wouldn't be objectionable. He continued
that in this particular instance there could be parking in the back of the
building with removal of some trees, but the trees gave a nice break -off from 57thi
., . . FRIDLEY APPEALS COM14ISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 5
Mr. Kemper stated that if the variance was denied and curbing installed on 57th
Place, he didn't think it was the Commission's position to tell them where to
park their cars. He stated that was not a concern of theirs, and also the cutting
of the trees was something they did not have to get into. He asked if the
variance was denied if the Commission should address itself to where they would
park their cars. Mr. Barna replied yes, they had to look at the stated hardship
and look at the whole balanced picture. Mr. Kemper said he understood that, but
wondered if the decision was made to deny the request if they would have to
address that problem.. Mrs. Gabel.said that they would have to meet City Code,
but the parking problem was part of the hardship. Mr. Kemper said he didn't
believe it was their position to prescribe to them how and where to park.
Mr. Holden said that each had to be considered as an individual case.. He stated
that in this case the hardship was. the problem area, and he thought because of
the room in the rear and the length of the lot, there would be room to install.
parking. 3e added that possibly a couple of trees would be lost, but not all
of them, by a natter of design of the parking facility. He said that the neighbor
next door had fe::yer problems with cars, but had a garage and also room to park
in front of the garage stalls. He said in that case there would still be the
hardship of jocigying the cars around.
Mr. Barna asked how many cars there were, and Mrs. Johnson said there were
usually seven, but right now there were eight. Mr. Kemper said there was nothing
they could do to accommodate that many cars anyway. Mr. Barna showed how they
could provide three more parking stalls and keep the four they already had. He
told Mrs. Johnson they couldn't tell the owners what to do.. but they could say
there were alternatives to parking in the front.
C
'Rir.. Holden made a sketch of another parking alternative; and Mr. Kemper said
if that were done it would be appropriate to insist that some sort of curbing
be installed. 'Mr. Holden stated that would definitely be appropriate, and any-
thing that would be approved by the City Planning Department would be satisfactory.
Mr. Kemper asked how many cars could park in that suggested area, and Mr. Holden
answered ten cars.
Chairaerson Gabel said it should be taken into consideration that the code
requires each building to have 7.5 parking stalls, and neither building meets
that. Mr. Kemper stated that the code was generated after the buildings were
built.
Mir. Kemper :sketched a proposed layout of a parking area in the back of the buildings,
and said this Mould necessitate a parking agreement with both owners. Mrs.
Johnson stated there would be a problem as tenants from the other building would
park in stalls meant for use by her tenants. Mr. Holden suggested putting an
apartment number on the curbing for each stall. Mrs. Johnson stated that
suggestion would tripe out everything in the backyard, where there was grass
and a garden, and they would also have to move a shed. Mr. Barna explained
they were just saying that there was an alternative to parking in the front.
Chairperson Gabel asked what the legal ramifications would be of granting one
and not the other, and stated that she felt the two situations were really
( different. Mr. Holden said that Staff had discussed these variances with the
` l City Attorney, but mostly just the business of violations of the code and not
alternative decisions. Mrs. Gabel asked if this was just noticed because of
the fact that the street work was done, and Mr. Holden said that was correct.
Mrs. Gabel said the records showed that the previous owner had been fined, and
FRIDLEY APPEALS COi1MISSION MEETIflG OF JULY 13, 1976
PAuE 6
there had been complaints of trash in the yard and cars without license plates.
Mr. Holden noted that the building had been improved greatly since the change
of ownership.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice .
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Barna said that having looked at the alternatives and the property as it
stands now, and since they were specifically discussing at this time 380 57th
Place, he would be in favor of allowing off-street parking in the boulevard in
the front with requirements as set forth in the letter from Mr. Colbert. Mr.
Kemper asked what his feelings were on 390, and lir. Barna replied that at 390
they had the garage in the back and cars could be in the garage and in back of
the garage, and that would satisfy the requirements. He explained that would
be -ten stalls (five in the garage and five outside), and there should be no
reason for tenants to park in front. He added that at 380 he could see a hardship
and expenses involved in providing additional stalls in the back.
Mr. Kemper said he didn't like eating up the whole back yard at 380 with asphalt
as the green area was more aesthetically pleasing and nice for the kids to play.
Mrs. Gabel said she agreed with Mr. Kemper and would like to see the back yard
and the trees not chopped down. She added that as long as they would improve
the front to make it more aesthetically pleasing than it is now, she could live
with an encroachment in the front yard. She said she felt there were definite
hardships at 380 that.did not exist next door.
tlr. Kemper said that if this was put in the form of a motion and was approved,
it appeared that they would be permitting the depressed curbing to stay in front
of 380 and not in front of 390. He stated that in Tom Colbert's lettteerhei dicated
it would cost approximately $1,000 to put the normal curb back up, lasked
Holden how much it would cost to put it back just in front of 390. Mr. Holden
answered it would cost about $300 to $h00, and said that move might be a bit
questionable.
Chairperson Gabel said she could see that happening, but still thought they had
to look at this as two individual items as they were two different situations.
She stated that one hada garage with five parking stalls inside and five out
with little or no need to park in front. She said that one of the tenants had
told her there was very little, if any, parking in front, and there was a maximum
of only four cars at the building now. She stated the situation was different
at 380. Mr. Holden said to grant an encroachment and off -street -parking variance
for 380, and tear up the curbing and replace it at 390 would be inconsistent.
Mr. Kemper asked Mrs. Johnson if they were permitted a variance to continue the
off-street parking in front, if it would be their intention to delineate that
parking area with some sort of curbing. Mrs. Johnson replied yes, they could
do that. Mr. Kemper stated he was sure it would be one of the conditions if
the request were granted that the parking area be covered with a hard surface and
the border defined. Mr. Holden asked Mrs. Johnson if she realized cars would be
getting closer to the.front of the building, and she replied she did.
Mr. Kemper stated that considering all practical use of city's funds, he couldn't(_
agree with allowing the variance at 380 and not 390. Mrs. Gabel said she agreed
it should be an all or nothing deal, but it seemed to be a paradox. She stated
.. . .
�,�•. "zzlluu Ur JULY 13, 1976
Nut 7
she wished the other petitioner was resent
from the other owners,.but at the last meetingMtheyosaid Said
he hadn't heard
tion for six weeks and may not be -able to attend. y might be on vasa-
Mr. Barna stated that the city looked at this as one problem, and Mr. Kemper
said he agreed. Mr. Kemper added that if they had to make a decision e e
be in' favor of it. per
would
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by -barna, to recommend to Council a
requests for variances to allow ofi'-street approval st the
4-Plexes at both 380 and 390 57th Place R.E. Fridley, tof hefollowingProvisions: ing
1. That the stipulations contained in Mr. Colbert's memo of
be incorporated. July 9, 1976,
2. That the parking area that would be permitted under this variance
be defined by permanent curbing acceptable to the Staff.
3. The surface of this area be paved with covering acceptable t
(hard surface). o Staff
4. The owners both continue to make arrangements for Private snow
services. plowing
5. Council is reminded that this variance does incur an encroachment
10.5 feet of city property. of
Mr. Kemper stated that he felt the only alternative
construction with a lot of black top in back Of thistbuildino this would be that
would distasteful
the worst of two evils. g, and that would be
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Kemper and Barna voting aye, Gabel voting nthe m
carried 2 - 1. nay., motion
Chairperson Gabel said that while it isn't practical to do so, she saw to
as two individual items. She stated she approved granting the variance fo
380 but not P these
390. She explained to Mrs. Johnson that this would r
City Council on July 26th. go before the
3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.075, 1
ALLOW TENANT AND GUEST OFF-STREET PARKING �It"THS RONT YARD T OF AN CITY EXIS TO
4-PLEX, ZU14ED R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) EXISTING
BLOCK 1, AUS ADDITION, THE SAME BEINu 106 .. ' LOCATED ON LOT 1,
OTA. (Request by Paul Burkholder 77TH WAY N.E., i�RIDLEY, MINNES-
55432). , 7860 Alden Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota
Mr. Holden stated that Mr. Burkholder had called and asked that this
Postponed until the next meeting of the Appeals Commission. item be
4. REQUEST FUh A VA1iIANCE OF SECTION 214.
I THE 100 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM SIZE OJ!' A FREE 053, 2' FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TU RAISE
(GENERAL SHOPPING AREAS STANDING SIGN IN C -2S ZONING
), TO 108 SQUARE !FEET, TO ALLUVI A 12 SQUARE FOOT
rf FRlULr:Y APPEALS 00MUSSION MEETING
r
JULY 27, 1976
MErIBEKS PRESENT: Virginia Schnabel, Alex barna, Pat Gabel
Jim Plemel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer
Dick Kemper,
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:30 P.M.
APPROVAL OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 29, 1976
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission approve the
minutes of the June 29, 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 13,, 1976
Mr. Holden informed the Commission that the date of July 26th on page 7, lith
.paragraph from the bottom, should be changed to August 16th.
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission approve the
minutes of the July 13, 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.075, 1, (E,1) FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT AND GUEST OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD
OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS),
LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AUS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 106 77TH WAY N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Paul Burkholder, 7860 Alden Way N.E.,
Fridley, Minnesota 55432).
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.075, 1, (E,l) prohibiting
parking in the required front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner stated that he needed to install 2 to 3 additional
parking spaces in front of said 4-Plex to accommodate guest and tenant
// parking since 77th Way has been designated a "no parking anytime" street.
4` This situation has created a problem for the petitioner because guests could.
previously park at the curb, and now will sometimes be forced to park in the
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of July 27, 1976
Page 2 2 A
1 driveway because of the parking ban on 77th Way. The property across the
street is heavy commercial (Barry Blower Company) and to the East of
.subject property, Barry Blower's parking lot for their employees.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Staff investigation shows a similar 4-Plex
apartment next door at 7673 East River Road which has parking in the front
yard 29 feet from the curb. 106 -77th Way N.E. is setback approximately
50 feet from the curb with a 15 ft. boulevard intervening. The rear of this
building has 3 parking stalls, which are the only existing off-street
parking stalls for this building. For 4 double units the required number
of off-street parking stalls is 8.
The "no parking, anytime" signs were posted on 77th Way during September,
1974, to control excessive on -street parking by Barry Blower employees in
response to a complaint by Donna Anderson of 106 77th Way N.E.
The petitioner is the owner of the 4-Plex at 7673 East River Road, as well
as the corner lot situated between the two apartment buildings. This corner
lot is not developed, and appears to be available for tenant parking. This
may be a viable alternative to this request. The vacant lot.would accommodate
at least a 3-Plex apartment and joint parking arrangements could be made.
Staff feels that all viable alternatives to this request should be consid-
ered.
Mr. Burkholder approached the Board and explained to the Commissioners the
photographs and a diagram showing present parking and the proposed parking.
He explained that one of his tenants had complained to the Police Department
that people from Barry Blower were blocking the driveway, so the "no parking,
anytime" signs were posted. He said that now when guests came there was no
room for them to park, and said he discovered this after he had received a
parking ticket. Mr. Burkholder explained he also owned the empty lot on the
corner which is zoned for a 7 -Unit, but he was not doing anything with it
presently. He stated that now he was being faced with the problem of people
pulling onto the grass, and he would like to put in.about a 30' blacktopped
area which would still leave about a 20' setback, and there would be plenty of
room for people to get out. He showed on the diagram where the parking lot
would go, and explained he was not anxious to put in a great big parking lot
because blacktop was so expensive.
Mr. Barna asked if the depth would be just enough for a parking stall, and Mr.
Burkholder said yes, with a little bit extra. Mrs. Gabel asked about parking
for the proposed 7 -Unit building, and Mr. Burkholder said he would probably
have to request another variance at that time as it was not desirable to have
any more traffic coning in off. of East River Road.
Mr. Kemper asked if the only reason for this additional parking area would be
to facilitate guest parking, and Mr. Burkholder replied it would be for the
tenants also, as some of them had two cars. He explained he has had this
building for about four years, and three or four cars in the back is no problem,
but any more would be a problem. He added that with no parking on either side
of the street it was a difficult situation.
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of July 27, 1976
Page 3 • 2
Mr. Kemper asked why the street was designated no parking anytime, and Mr.. Holden
explained it came about as a result of a complaint from one of the tenants.
He added that there were children in the apartments, and 77th Way has become
a shortcut with heavy traffic, so it was also a safety precaution. Mr. Holden
added that Barry Blower was asked about his employees, and he said there was
no problem at all as he had adequate parking. Chairperson Schnabel asked if
Barry Blower ran 24 hours a day, and Mr. Holden replied that he believed they
had two shifts. Mr. Plemel asked if the city could restrict street parking to
tenants and guests, and Mr. Barna said they could not.
Mr. Burkholder stated that was a busy street and he thought it was going to
get a lot busier, and he used it himself as a shortcut. He said there really
wouldn't be and problem as there wasn't a blind corner there, but now people
were parking right up on the grass.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if there was a fence that ran across the back of
the lot, and Mr. Burkholder replied there was a 6' Cyclone fence that separated
the properties. Mrs. Schnabel asked how many tenants in this building had
cars at this time, and Mr. Burkholder replied there were five cars. Mrs.
Schnabel asked Mr. Holden if there were any other viable solutions other than
the suggestion of perhaps going into the empty lot. Mr. Holden replied there
really weren't, as it was so tight up against the property lines in either
direction. He said that building another multi -unit apartment complex on the
corner could alleviate the problem, but that was in the distant future.
C Mr. Burkholder stated that he thought he would put some hedges along the street
if the request was approved, because he wanted it to be aesthetically pleasing.
He said that he only lived five blocks from there, so he was concerned, and
added he thought this was a reasonable request.
Mr. Holden said that both buildings were setback in such a way that the parking
wouldn't obstruct any vision in the area. Chairperson Schnabel said she could
see, too, that even if Mr. Burkholder was to build on the empty lot, he was
going to have a sialine problem keeping the building back far enough so there
wouldn't be any visual blockage of the intersection. Mr. Burkholder said that
eventually, if the building went up, he would be applying for front parking
again. He added that he thought it could look nice. Chairperson Schnabel
asked about a green area, and.Mr. Burkholder replied he would still have a green
area as his tenants had children.
Mr. Plemel asked if he just intended to put in three stalls in front,.and Mr.
Burkholder replied that was his intention. He said that from an aesthetic
standpoint, four would look like the whole front yard.was a parking lot. Mrs.
Schnabel said if he had six stalls and the tenants had five cars, that would
leave only one space for guests. Mr. Burkholder said that sometimes they
parked next door in the Barry Blower lot.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel stated that it would appear the problem was the landlocked
position of this particular unit and the property it sits on, and the fact that
the petitioner really has no where else to go to provide parking accommodations
for tenants and guests.
�
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of July 27, .2C 1976 Page 4 _{
Mr. Kemper commented that it appeared to him there was front -yard parking all
over that.area. Mr. Plemel asked if the parking lot could be limited to a small
an area as possible and there be no encroachment on the 15' boulevard. He
added that if Mr. Burkholder intended to build in a year or two, it wouldn't
be feasible to insist on parking in the empty lot. Mrs. Gabel said -she agreed,
and would also like it limited to three stalls so there wasn't blacktop from
one end to the other.
Mr. Barna said that being a heavy contributor to the traffic on that street,
he didn't see where parking in the front lot would make it more difficult for
people to see. He stated that when Mr. Burkholder built on the other lot, it
would just continue that front yard parking all around that corner. He said
he would have.no objection.
Mrs. Gabel asked -if there was some kind of code requirements for perimeters,
or if curbing was required. Mr. Holden said there were no requirements for
off-street parking. Mr.,Burkholder said it was very difficult in the wintertime
when the snow came to remove the snow if there was curbing. He added that the
definition would be very clear when the blacktop was down, and on the side
iacing 77th he would put in some hedges to make it more aesthetically pleasing.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission recommend
to the City Council that the request for a front yard variance be approved.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Plemel stated that the city should ensure there was no encroachment on the
15' boulevard. Chairperson Schnable informed Mr. Burkholder that this would
go before the City Council on August 16th.
2. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 214.053, 2, FRIDLEY CITY CODE,
TO RAISE THE 100 SQUARE FEET MAXE4UM SIZE OF A FREE STANDIRU SIGN IN C -2S
ZONING (GENERA. SHOPPING AREAS), TO 108 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE
FOOT INFORMATION SIGN TU BE ADDED TO AN EXISTING 96 SQUARE FOOT SIGN,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH 204 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 200 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2,
EAST RANCH ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7730 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
N.E., FRIDLff, MINNESOTA. (Request by the Town Crier Pancake House, 7730
University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432).
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Marna, to remove this item from the table. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 214.0953, 2, limiting size
of free-standing signs to 100 square feet.
Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to limit visual
pollution from free-standing signs in business areas.
B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner wants to add 12 square foot information sign
saying "Open 24 Hours" to existing 96 square foot.sign. Variance from 100
square ft. to 108 square ft.
- -- --- r.[ c,:nw vv Il 11aJ1U1V /1C.G111V1t Ur JUN6 Ly, tyro ! PAGE 6
Chairperson Schnabel said the request was to go to 361, but it seemed to fall in
line more with 37' instead of 361. Mr. Holden said he was really allowing for
the fact that they didn't have a verifying survey, and added that it might be C
36.7' or 371. Mrs. Gabel asked if there would have to be a fire wall, and Mr.
Holden replied there would be.
Mr. Kemper said he agreed with Mr. Plemel that there didn't seem to be a signifi-
cant hardship, but if the neighbors felt as Mr. Black suggested, he had no objection.
Mrs. Schnabel said she believed they would have heard from the neighbors either
by letter or phone call if they objected.
Mrs. Gabel said that perhaps their hardships weren't well defined, but there
would have been additional problems going off the back and it would be an
additional expense, so there would be a few hardships to be taken into consider-
ation. Mr. Barna said that if they had a lot of room and wanted more room, it
was their prerogative. He stated he would have no objection to it..
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the
request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (31A) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO
ALLO:•I TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING 1N THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX,
ZONED R-2 MJ'0 FAMIILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK
6, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAf4E BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY..
MINNESUTA 55132). (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer, 6501 - 761
Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55128).
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon'a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.065, 3,B. No parking
stall shall occupy any portion of the required front yard.
Public purpose served by this section of the code is to reduce visual
pollution. in the front yard.
B. STATED HARDSh IP: Petitioner advised by the City Engineering Department
that provision had been made to continue access to these existing stalls,
but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate
variance.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Depressed curbing was installed in the front
of this 4 -flex to allow continued parking in the front yard by the Engineering
Department, because waiting for the processing of the variance request would
have been a very costly delay in the street construction. The owner was
requested to obtain a variance, or the depressed curbing would be replaced
by regular curbing. The apartment has three 2 -bedroom and one single bedroom
units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The garage in the rear,
�,, L7 r v rAuz
• facing 57th Avenue X.E., has 5 parking stalls. It is located 40 feet from
the curbing on 57th Avenue with approximately 10 feet of boulevard. This
Cwould possibly allow for parking in the rear driveway 'without parking in
the street right-of-way. (Those with two cars could park the second .car
outside, behind their garage stall). In addition, the 4 -Plea apartment
building -next door to the 'Nest is 46 feet from the building at 390 57th
Place. The area could be used as a joint parking area to help alleviate
the front yard parking problem. Diagonal parking with'a driveway from
front to .rear could be installed. This would rea_uire joint agreement with
the neighbor to the :lest.
In as much as the neighbor to the West is scheduled before the Appeals
Commission with a similar request at the next meeting, Staff recommends
that the Commission discuss this issue, and postpone a decision until
both requests can be considered simultaneously.
Staff feels that a viable alternative to this front yard parking can be
worked out in this case.
Mr. and Mr Neururer approached the 'Board and said they had bought the building
about five years ago, and thought it must be about twenty years old. Mr.
Neururer stated there had been parking allowed in front of his building and
the h-Pl.ex next to it for twenty years, and the curbs were depressed to allow
the cars to drive in.
Mr. Holden explained that a letter had been sent from the City Engineer, Tom
Colbert, saying that the off-street parking accommodations on 57th Place were
C in violation of the City Code. He said the letter had stated that in order to
continue parking that way, they would have to request a variance or the city
would remove the depressed curbing. Mr. Holden further explained that the
depressed curbing had been poured because the concrete machines were right
.there working on a street improvement project.
MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the Planning Commission receive the
letter from Thomas Colbert to Mr. Peter heururer, dated June 1,' 1976, notifying
them they were in violation of the City Code. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel noted there were parking stalls for five cars in the rear
of the building, and asked if the tenants didn't use them. Mr. heururer replied
that the stalls were assigned and used by the tenants, but occasionally they would
park in the front. He added that there was parking in front of the garage
stalls also.
Mr. Kemper asked how many total cars the four tenants had, and -Mr. Neururer
replied they all had at least one car. Mr. Plemel asked where the parking
space was in front of the garage, and Mr. Neururer answered between the garage
and the curb. Mr. Plemel asked how this all came about, and Mr. Holden said
that normally when the new curbing goes in on the street the new property owners
are informed; however, while the discussion was going on the concrete machines
were going down the street so it was poured as depressed curbing. Mr. Holden
explained that the neighbor to the West had a similar problem, and was scheduled
to appear before the Appeals Commission on their next agenda.
FRIDLEY APPEALS COIC4ISSION MEETING OF JUNE 292 1976 PAVE 8
Mr. Barna asked what their actual desire was, and if they would rather have the
tenants all park in back. Mr. Neururer-answered that they would prefer to keep
it the way it is now. 'Mr. Plemel asked if visitors could park on the street
for many hours, and Mr. Holden said they could. Mr. Plemel asked what the
ordinance was, and Mr. Holden replied that parking was not allowed continuously
for twenty-four hours. Mr. Plemel asked what the street width was, and Mr.
Holden answered it was 36' back of curb to back of curb, with a driving surface
of about 321.
Chairperson Schnabel said that apparently back in 1968, when the detached
garage was built, they had requested approval of a setback from 35' to 301.
She stated that work was started on the garage and the concrete poured, but
a red tag was issued because it was improperly set back and there was a court
hearing. lir. Kemper asked if there was any discussion on the proposed garage
pertaining to off-street parking in the front, and Mrs. Schnabel replied that
the code violation was that setback for garages and accessory buildings in a
rear yard should be the same as for a front yard. Chairperson Schnabel read
the following history of the garage to the Commission:
April 10, 1968 - Issued Building Permit #9659 for a u stall garage
at 390 57th Place N.E, with a 35' setback.
April 16, 1968 - Inspection made by Clarence Belisle. "Hold for Council
determination on setback."
April 19, 1968 - Inspection made by Jan Gasterland. Upon advise of the
City Attorney the contractor was advised not to pour.
April 26, 1964 - Stop work order issued by Inspector Gasterland.
April 26, 1968 - Letter written to the owner, Terry Haig, by the City
Engineer, Mr. Qureshi, stating that he must go to the
Board of Appeals for the variance on the setback.
May 3, 1968 - Inspection made by Clarence Belisle. Pictures were.taken
at this time of the garage under construction.
May 6, 1966 Complaint signed by the Building Inspector.
May 144 1968 - More pictures taken which indicated further construction
had taken place since the. pictures on 5/3/68.
Chairperson Schnabel said they continued to proceed and finally on July 17, 1968,
the case was brought before a judge. She stated the records do not say what
happened, but the garage was obviously finished.
Mrs. iveururer stated that some of the tenants had two cars, and it they parked
one in the garage stall and one behind, they would have to juggle their cars
around and it would be inconvenient to them. She said that parking arrangements
had been this way for some time and the tenants were used to the off-street
parking, and it would be missed if it was not allowed.
FRIDLW APPEALS CUMMISS10N MEETInG OF JUNE 29, 19'rb PAuE 9
Chairperson Schnabel said that they had to keep Moth 4-Pleces in mired, as they
C couldn't grant a variance to one and not the other. She asked if tney had
talked to the owner at 360 about this, and Air. Neururer replied he had not.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the reason she asked was because Staff felt_ that an
alternative to the off --street parking for both of them would be to put a drive-
way in between the.two buildings. Mr. Neururer replied that he was against
that idea. He stated they had nothing but trouble with kids cutting through
their property now, and he could foresee many complaints from the tenants. He
added that he had a fence through there that had been vandalized.
Chairperson Schnabel asked how many of the tenants used the garage stalls at
the present time, and Mrs. Neururer replied that they all did. She added that .
one of the tenants did not have a car, but used the garage for storage; and
that occasionally half of the double garage was used for storage. She said
they all parked their cars in the garages overnight at this time. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if the parking in the front was limited, and Airs. Neururer replied it
was.
Mr. Barna asked if Mr. Neururer would go along with black topping and a curb
in the area in front, and he replied that he would. Mr. Holden said there
was a substantial boulevard there also, and the front was 35' setback from
the lot line. Mr. Barna said he would be against the alternative suggested by Staff
as it would be a playground for the kids, there would be vandalism problems,
and the grass looked a lot better.
Mr. Ken: er asked what would happen if this variance was denied, and Mr. Holden
said about 80' of depressed curbing would have to be removed at the city's
expense, and it would have to be replaced. He stated this would run between
$1,000 and $1,600.
Chairperson Schnabel said that if the tenants were prohibited from parking on
the boulevard property and off-street parking was granted, they would have to
park right up to the front of the building. Mr. Holden said he thought
boulevard parking could be granted. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that would require
a special request since it was a separate code, and Mr. Holden said he didn't
think so. He said if parking were allowed on the boulevard, -perhaps there
should be some curbing there so it would look like a parking area. He stated
he thought this would enhance it, as sometimes people drive over on the grass.
Mr. Plemel added that it would clean it up somewhat, and would define the area.
Chairperson Schnabel said that off-street parking did not necessarily mean
parking in the front yard, and that was why she was wondering if it would need
a separate request to park on the boulevard. She asked how this was plowed
in the wintertime, and Mr. Neururer replied that he. plowed it himself. Mr.
Kemper asked where lie put the snow, and Mr. Neururer said no further on the
grass than he had to. Firs. Schnabel said that if off-street parking were allowed,
there would have to be some kind of a guarantee that it would be plowed. Mr.
Kemper asked if he plowed snow for his neighbor at 380, and Mr. Neururer replied
he did not.
.Air. Plemel stated that he didn't think the absence of off-street parking in
front would cause any problem in renting the units. Mr. Neururer agreed, but
FRIDLEY APPEALS CU��'fISS1014 -MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAGE 10
said the tenants that already lived there were used to it.. Mrs. Neururer stated
that the units would be less desirable if the people had to move their cars
around to got one out. She added that the people in the double garage had two
cars, there was someone else moving, in with two cars, so there would be three
tenants who had two cars. She stated there really wasn't a problem as long as
off-street parking was available. Nr. Kemper said he would like this correct
number of tenants with two cars noted in the record. -
Chairperson Schnabel said that the existing code would require 7.5 parking
stalls for the size and number of apartments in that dwelling, so since they
have five existing stalls they would technically have to provide 2.5 more to;
meet the code. Mr. Plemel pointed out that the area in front of the garage
was not really a parking stall. Mr. Holden said that if they were to grant .
this request, they should include Section 205.155, 12 2 & 3, talking about
boulevards.
Chairperson Schnabel said that what they came down to was since parking would
be prohibited on the boulevard, it would be a requirement that 2.5 additional
parking stalls be provided on the property with an access that could go on to
the boulevard. She explained that if they allowed off-street parking in the
front, they could state their approval in terms of number of parking stalls.
They could allow three off-street parking stalls in the front, she stated. -
Mrs. Schnabel added that she was trying to get at justifying the request, because
then it would come up to code. She stated that they had an additional problem
when they talked about this in terms of the structure next door, and thought it
was unfortunate they couldn't have both requests before tnem at the same time.
Mrs. Schnabel said that because the two buildings were adjacent, even though
they had separate o*.hers, they were the only two on that side of the street \
and should both be considered at the same time. Mr. Neururer asked if just
their variance could be granted at this time, and the other owner's at the
time he appeared before the Board. Chairperson Schnabel said she didn't think
that was the solution, and said the other owner's problem was a little different
since he does not have a garage.
Mr. Plenel asked if there weren't requirements for off-street parking when these
buildings were built, and Mrs. Schnabel said not necessarily. She stated that
these codes probably didn't exist at the time those buildings were built. Mr.
Kemper suggested tabling this until such time that both parties could appear
before the Board. Lrs. Neururer asked if the tenants would be ticketed in the
meantime, and Mr. Holden replied they would not. Mr. Neururer asked if it would
help to talk to the neighbors and have them sign something, and Mr. Barna said
it would.help a little bit. He stated that there was a conflict with three or
four different zoning ordinances, and a solution was necessary, so it would be
better to look at the thole picture instead of just part of it._ Mr. Barna asked
if they would go with a well-maintained parking area in the front, and Mrs.
Neururer replied they would, and said they had plans to black top it.
There was some discussion as to if Mr. and Mrs. Neururer would be able to
attend the next scheduled meeting of the Appeals Commission if this were to'
be tabled, as it conflicted with their vacation plans. After some debating,
it was decided that they would reschedule their plans to be in attendance.
FILIDLEY APPEALS COMiSSION MEETInG OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAGE 11
a
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission table this request
until the next scheduled meeting on July 132 1976, when both parties of 390 and
380 57th Place would appear on the agenda; and that off-street parking be permitted
until the Board has acted on this request. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMEiiT :
Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the Appeals Commission meeting of June 29, 1976
at 9:33 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherri O'Donnell
Secretary
1(
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450
December 16, 1977
Mr.. Richard Hart
6035 Main Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Hart:
On November 14th of this year, a public hearing was held before the City
Council regarding proposed street improvements for 1978.
As you may be aware, the streets in your area are included in the 1978
Street Improvement Project.
During the review of the.present parking conditions, it has been determined
that your existing front yard, off-street parking accommodations are not in
compliance with the Fridley City Code #205.061, Section 3, Paragraph E.
(See enclosed copy of pertinent. section of the code). All multiple dwellings
must provide appropriate off-street parking; however, in your particular case,
the only feasible area to provide this parking is�in the front yard. Our
files indicate that a variance has not been granted by the City allowing
your existing type of front yard, off. -street parking.
Continued use of these present parking facilities is contingent upon you
making application for, and :receiving approval of, appropriate variances.
It is imperative that application be made no later than January 20, 1978.
This will allow the Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission and the City
Council adequate time to review the request prior to the scheduled street
improvement project, so that the appropriate parking lot driveway approach
depressions in the proposed curb and gutter can be established. A copy
of the application form is also enclosed for your convenience. A non-refundable
application fee of $50 must accompany your variance application.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact
Mr. Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator, or Mr. Clyde Moravetz
of the Engineering Division.
Sincerely,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Clyde V. Moravetz —`
Engineering Division
CVM/grs
cc: Richard Sobiech
Darrel Clark
Del Zentgraf
Enclosures
ENO/ ADORE S FILE D TE _.__
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST
RETURN TO. PLANNING DUE DATE __._..._.
� 05
rr l _ COMMENTS
Loa
-T-CmAh
_El
r'
1 - a
Dick}
f � _
%Ja
rE
a
CITY OF FRIDLEY,
SUBJECT,
MINNESOTA
COMMISSION APPLICATION
PREVIEW
Deport n / ion
_ .. ..
Number j
Rev page Approved by
pale
ENO/ ADORE S FILE D TE _.__
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST
RETURN TO. PLANNING DUE DATE __._..._.
� 05
rr l _ COMMENTS
Loa
-T-CmAh
_El
r'
1 - a
Dick}
f � _
%Ja
rE
a
MiNDEnF.LwGrNEiu:ziNG coNc,
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS j
LAND SURVEYING $OIL$ TES -TING
CIVIL LAND PLANNIIVQ
6418 -SGT" AVENUE N.
MINNEAPOLIS 2'f, MINN.
KE 7- 5G3?'
Jr f! Ir li f i jC1� 1� �L It �� �S �� Q�`►1l►�
cn_
i
- �� , FRIDLEY
BOARD OF APPEALS
EXHIBIT N0. -
S C oAE : V"
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH15 15 A TRUE PND CORRECT REPRESENTATIOM OF A SURVEY OF THE, 5OUNDAIZIES OF THE
LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED ANO OF THE LOCATION OF: ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHWIENTS,
IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND. MINDER ENGINEERING CO., INC.
onrt:o Tnl 5 � � DAY of �I. P ^.1 L ,-
A.o.I�nl ENGINEERS a,ND sURv>:YORS
MEETING DATE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH15 15 A TRUE PND CORRECT REPRESENTATIOM OF A SURVEY OF THE, 5OUNDAIZIES OF THE
LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED ANO OF THE LOCATION OF: ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHWIENTS,
IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND. MINDER ENGINEERING CO., INC.
onrt:o Tnl 5 � � DAY of �I. P ^.1 L ,-
A.o.I�nl ENGINEERS a,ND sURv>:YORS
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue N.E.
on Tuesday, February 14, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter:
A request for a variance of the Fridley City Code
as follows:
Section 205.065, 3B, to allow the required off-street
parking stalls to be located in the required front
yard,
to allow the continuation of existing parking as
is, on Lots 26 and 27, Block 8, Hyde Park, the
same being 6035 Main Street N.E., Fridley, Mn.
(Request by Mr. Richard Warren Hart, 6035 Main
Street N.E., Fridley, Mn. 55432)
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will
be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEALS COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
6035 Main Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.065, 3B, prohibiting parking in the required
front yard.
Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to
reduce visual pollution in the front yard.
B. SLATED HARDSHIP:
In order to comply with City parking Code as requested
by City Engineering Department.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
This four -plea apartment appears to be about 23 feet
from each side lot line. The building is 38.5 feet
from the front property line. The parking ratio
required totals six stalls based on two -one bedroom
units, one-two bedroom unit, and one -three bedroom
unit. The parking requested would be similar to
existing parking with 20 foot by 10 foot stalls which
would abut the boulevard but not be in the boulevard.
Parking in the side yard is impractical. There is
space in the rear yard for two parking stalls without
a variance. The terrain would make entering the rear
yard difficult unless the alley to the rear was used
for access.
G
123
Continued and amended variance request
from 2-14-78
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue
Northeast on Tuesday, Marchl4, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. to reconsider the following
matter:
A request for variances of the Fridley City Code
as follows:
Section 205.053, 3B, to allow the required off-street
parking stalls to be located in the required front
yard, and,
Section 205.138, 5, to allow the location of a garbage
receptable in the front yard, rather than the required
side or back yard,
to allow the continuing use of the front yard parking
and dumpster locations on Lots 26 and 27, Block 8,
Hyde Park, the same being 6035 Main Street N.E., Fridley,
Mn. (Request by Richard Warren Hart, 6035 Main Street
N.E., Fridley, Mn.55432).
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will
be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
4 4
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue N.E.
on Tuesday, February 14, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter:
A request for a variance of the Fridley City Code
as follows:
Section 205.065, 3B, to allow the required off-street
parking stalls to be located in the required front
yard,
to allow the continuation of existing parking as
is, on Lots 26 and 27, Block 8, Hyde Park, the
same being 6035 Main Street N.E., Fridley, Mn.
(Request by Mr. Richard Warren Hart, 6035 Main
Street N.E., Fridley, Mn. 55432)
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will
be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEALS COMMISSION
Continued and Amended Variance
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY' OF FRIDLEY'
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of
Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University
Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, March 14, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. to reconsider the
following matter:
s
A request for variances of the Fridley City Code
as follows:
Section 205.075, 1, E,1, to allow the required off-
street parking stalls to be closer to the property
line that the required 5 feet, and
Section 205.075, 1, D, to reduce the required parking
stall width from 10 feet to 9 feet, and square footage
from 200 square feet to 180 square feet, to allow 9 ft.
by 20 ft. parking stalls, and
Section 205.075, 1, E,3, to allow the parking stalls
to be closer to the property line than 5 feet, and
Section 205.138, 5, to allow the location of a garbage
receptacle in the front yard, rather than the required
side or back yard,
to allow the continuing use of the front yard parking
and dumpster locations on Lots 26 and 27., Block 8,
Hyde Park, the same being 6035 Main Street N.E.
(Request by Mr. Richard Warren Hart, 6035'Mai.n Street N.E.,
Fridley, Mn 55432).
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will
be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
Item #'2 March 14, 3978
APMINI§TRATIVF STAFF REPORT
6035 Main Street N.E.
-1 1
PUBLIC PPRPPSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Sectipp 205..075, 1, E,1v prohibiting parking in required front yard.
T4e purpose served is to reduce Visualpollutionin the front yard.
Section 205.075, 1, E,!, prohibiting Parking any closer than 5 feet from
h,e. pro.pe,rty line.
die u;rpqs,q servedjs� to reduce visual pollution In areas adjacent to lot
i,n,,e� and t9, * s.epir te parkJlqg with 14ndspoped -areas,
.5actign 420.5 Q75, I D. be a minimiuni of 10 feet
y 20 Feet
2,00 re - q4tripg, a parking stall t
'feet.
s. Rvairq
The, pyr.pAe served i,s. to prox-10,e, adequate room. between Targ
_�e veh-i'Oes.
Septi -on, 205..1.38,, 5, desi.gqatfn,.,g the. rear. and. side yards, as the on1y, approved*
1,qc4ffons(fo'r garbage. re.ceptacl:es.
The pprpose served; ts. to rqOucq. yi-sual, pq1JutiQn, i1n, the, front. yard...
STATED MRDSH-TP.:,
Ip. order, to: comply, wiith, City. Code parkisng, requirements as,, reqqes.ted. by the
GijV En.gineerjipg Department.,
Q7. &WLIUSTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:,
I,,t w,4,s detp mined, by the. City, Zoning. Admipilstr4tor. t-Wtht% fouri-pl.ex
apartment Is p;be treated; as a,. R! -.3- (multi.pl,,e, dwel-1,i-n).,. use Tn an, R-2-
, -
((�wq, family -txuptures.); district., Therefore, 41.1 City, Code: -de. secti*ons.,
Quoted are for the. property's, actual; "use." in. an R2 zorring distritt.,,
Thfs apartme-nt is about. 23 "feet froM, each, sj-de�, lot kine._ The building
is* 38 feet from the property line. The,, presentcode,, whiidi came, after
the building was constructed, cal 19- for- a. total-- of. 7,._5 parki-ng, stal',]"S-,
The ratio is based on two -one bedroom units,,.onen.twQ,.bedroom. unit, ands
one -three bedroom unit. The parking suqgeste_d: wo.04- be, sitniTar to-,
what's existing, with 9' by 20' foot stalls s, to. abut, the, houl iavard:-,�, but:
notbe in the boulevard. Eight (8) stalls; at. 9,- f -.L. wtde� would, equwIF
72 feet of parking width on this 82 foot-,, lot., Staff,,- s.,u.qgpsts that. a--, four,
(4) foot setback from the property I i ne to,, the.. RA-rkitig,° s-ta-3-131 be,, maiftatneA',
in the side yard. (See attached drawing)-.
Parking in the side yard is impractical.. There. is- space. ito the-, rear. -yard'
for two parking stalls without a variance;, The,, terr.&IIiIwomild, make-, enterihq,�
the rear -yard difficult unless the alley. -were usedtfD.r.,azce-s!s,-.
Item March 14, 1978
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
6035 Main Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.075, 1, E,1, prohibiting parking in required front yard.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution -in the front yard.
Section 205.075, 1, E,3, prohibiting parking any closer than 5 feet from
the property line.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in areas adjacent to lot
lines and to separate parking with landscaped areas.
Section 205.075, 1, D, requiring a parking stall to be a minimum of 10 feet
by 20 feet and 200 square feet.
The purpose served is to provide adequate room between large vehicles.
Section 205.138, 5, designating the rear and side yards as the only approved
locations for garbage receptacles.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
In order to comply with City Code parking requirements as requested by the
City Engineering Department.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
It was determined by the City Zoning Administrator that this four-plex
apartment is to be treated as a R-3 (multiple dwelling) use in an R-2
(two family structures) district. Therefore, all City Code sections
quoted are for the property's actual "use" in an R-2 zoning district.
This apartment is about 23 feet from each side lot line. The building
is 38 feet from the property line. The present code, which came after
the building was constructed, calls for a total of 7.5 parking stalls.
The ratio is based on two -one bedroom units, one-two bedroom unit, and
one -three bedroom unit. The parking suggested would be similar to
what's existing, with 9' by 20' foot stalls to abut the boulevard, but
not be in the boulevard. Eight (8) stalls at 9 ft. wide would equal
72 feet of parking width on this 82 foot lot. Staff suggests that a four
(4) foot setback from the property line to the parking stall be maintained
in the side yard. (See attached drawing).
Parking in the side ,yard is impractical. There is space in the rear yard
for two parking stalls without a variance_. The terrain would make entering
the rear yard difficult unless the alley were used for access.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 14, 1978 Page 2
Ms. Gabel said that she wouldn't be comfortable doing away
with the ten foot island without the other property owner at
6035 Main Street present at the meeting (Mr. Hart did not appear
at the February 11�, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting).
Mr. Waara asked if the Appeals Commission had the jurisdiction
to deal with the trash receptacle.
Chairperson Schnabel said that approval of the variance
request could be recommended to City Council with the stipulation
that the trash receptacle would be allowed at the front of the
building if it was properly screened. She explained that the
stipulation would mean that before Mr. Vlaara could receive the
variance request, he would have to properly screen the trash
recepticle.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the same stipulation would
.be placed on the property at 6035 Main Street so that the cost
of the trash recepticle screening would be shared by the two
property owners.
Mr. Kemper wanted to know if the property owners paved the
parking lot up to the boulevard, would the City pave the boulevard
Mr. Moravetz said that the City would pave the 11 foot
boulevard. He said that if the property owners paved the entire
area prior to the street improvement project and they extended
the paving all the way to the street, then the City would pave
that part so that it would blend into the street.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if the property owners would be
assessed for the paving of that additional 11 feet.
Mr. Moravetz said that it would be considered as part of the
paving project and the total cost of the project would be shared
by all the property owners being assessed for the improvement project.
Mr. Waara said that at one point in time he and the adjacent
property owner (Mr. Hart) had discussed the possibility of
asphalting the entire parking area as a joint venture. He said
that they dere mainly waiting to find out exactly what the City
had planned for the street improvement project.
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 9:28 P.M.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 142 1978 Pa&e 10
Mr. Kemper said that the Variance request did not address
itself to the required number of parking stall. He said he
was reluctant to rule on the request to reduce the number of
parking stalls by .5 stalls when it really wasn't part of the
actual request.
Ms. Gabel said that if they eliminated the center island,
they also wouldn't have the correct variance request.
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to table the
request for a variance of the Fridley City Code as follows:
Section 205.0659 3B, to allow the required off-street parking
stalls to be located in the required front yard, to allow the
continuation of existing parking as is, on Lots 24 & 25,
Block 82 Hyde Park, the same being 6021 Main Street NE,
Fridley, MN, until March 149 1978.
Chairperson Schnabel said that an attempt would be made to
be sure that Mr. Hart, the property owner at 6035 Main Street NE,
would also attend that public hearing. She said that at the
March 149 1978, meeting the Commission would address all the
variances that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Kemper said that it would be best to be able to resolve
all the issues at the same time.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. The request was tabled until March 14, 1978.
Chairperson Schnabel said that additional variance requests
were anticipated by the Appeals Commission:
1) Reduce the number of parking stalls; or
2) Zero lot line variance; or
3) To place a trash receptacle in the front yard and
required screening of same.
3. A REQUEST FOR A VARIgT`CE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS:
-SECTION-205-06 38= TO ALLOW THE RE'.)UIRED OFF-STREET
PARKING STALLS TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, TO
ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING PARKING AS IS, ON LOTS
26 & 27, BLOCK 81 HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 6035 MAIN
STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN. (REQUEST BY MR. RICHARD WARREN HART,
6035 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN 55432).
MOTION by 11s. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to continue the
request until March 14, 1978, due to the fact that Mr. Hart did
not appear at the February 14, 1978, meeting. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel declared a ten minute recess at 9:42 P.M.
Cu�+b
I
1
�
_
1..
i
4.
f 1
q(
53-84-0915.51
City of Fridley
Applicaftn for Mmd&g and Sm Nffbg Ferodt
Der& of Bldgs. Picone 560-3490
DESCRIPTION OF WORK 6035 N E Main St
Number, Kind and Location of Fixtures
Location -
91
®
a
,.
gZ
a
$
$
Zi
N
K
3
a
a
Q
J°�
t� G
Z
O
3
7Z.
(9
Z
7gWg
I
N
WATER HTR.
GAS
ELEC.
Base
Electric Water Heater
= $2.00
$
GAS FITTING FEES:
I
ast
Ga
e
Additional Fixtures ..... ..............
x $ .75
$
Gas Range to 199,000 BTU ..............
x $5.00
$
Gps Dryer
1
5.00
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Future Connection Openings I `A �� $ewer
$ Now Fixture, Old Openings Cesspool O
PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE
PLU24BING FIXTURE RATES:
NO. RATE TOTAL.
Number Fixtures
x $2.00
$
Future Fixture Opening
x $1.50
$--
New Fixture Old Opening
x $1.50
$
Catch Basin ..
x $3.25
$
Water Heater (Up to 99,000 BTU)
x $3.00
$
New Ground Run Old Bldg.
x $3.25
$
Electric Water Heater
= $2.00
$
GAS FITTING FEES:
NO. RATE TOTAL
1st 3 Fixtures ......... ...... ....
.. x $2.00
$
Additional Fixtures ..... ..............
x $ .75
$
Gas Range to 199,000 BTU ..............
x $5.00
$
Gps Dryer
1
5.00
REPAIRS B ALTERATIONS. --Rafe: to Code
Description .... ............................. .............$
TOTAL MM 00
City of Ridley:
The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herei
specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinance
and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the fact
and representations stated in this application are true and correct.
4-1-70
Fridley, Minn 19_
Owner
E Rannerbarger
Kind of Building frame
Used as
To be completed about 4-570
Estimated Cost, $ 10.00
Old—New. Building Permit No. _Pe rmio.
Si
By- — .I
�RayOUgGH
Business Phone No
COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 14, 1978 Page
MOTION by Mr. Plemel, 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 8:32 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals
Commission recommend approval of the request for variances of the
Fridley City Code as Follows:
Section 205.07509E,1 to allow the 'required off-street parking
stalls to be zero feet to the front property line;
Section 205.075,1,D, to reduce the required parking stall width
from ten feet to nine feet, and square footage from 200 square
feet to 180 square feet, to allow 9 ft by 20 ft parking stalls;
Section 205.07521,E,3, to allow the parking stalls to be located
four feet from the front side property lines;
Section 205.138,5, to allow the location of a garbage receptacle
in the front yard, rather than the required side or back yard;
to allow the continuing use of the front yard parking and dumpster
locations on Lots 24 and 25, Block 8, Hyde Park, the same being
6021 Main Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota.
Chairperson Schnabel requested that the Staff redraw Exhibit A
before the request goes to City Council, to reflect the discussion
regarding the actual location of the dumpster.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
2. CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES.OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS
FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.075,12E,1, TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET
PARKING STALLS TO BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE REQUIRED
5.FEET; AND SECTION 205.07509D, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING
STALL WIDTH FROM 10 FEET TO 9 FEET, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 200
SQUARE FEET TO..180 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW 9 FT BY 20 FT PARKING
STALLS; AND SECTION 205.0752E,E932 TO ALLOW THE PARKING STALLS TO
BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN 5 FEET; AND SECTION 205'138 5-y
TO ALI,Otir THE LOCATION OF A GARBAGE RECEPTACLE IN THE FRONT YARD,
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SIDE OR BACK YARD; TO ALLOW CONTINUING
USE OF THE FRONT YARD PARKING.AND DUMPST OCATIONS 26
AND 27, BLOCK 89 HYDE PARK, THE SAME BE NG 6035 MAIN STREET ,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY RICHAR 9ARREN HART,
6035 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN 55432),
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that it would not be necessary to open
the Public Hearing, unless Mr. Hart, or someone from the audience, had
more input on the item.
- MARCH 1
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
6035 Main Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07591,E,12 prohibiting parking in required front yard.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the.front yard.
Section 205.075,19E,3, prohibiting parking any closer than five
feet from the property line.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in areas adjacent
to lot lines and to separate parking with landscaped areas.
Section 205.075,1,D, requiring a parking stall to be a minimum of
ten, feet by twenty feet and 200 square feet.
The purpose served is to provide adequate room between large
vehicles.
Section 205.138,51 designating the rear and side yards as the
only approved locations for garbage receptacles.
The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
In order to comply with City Code parking requirements as requested
by the City Engineering Department.
! C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
It was determined by the City Zoning Administrator that this four-
plex apartment is to be treated as a R-3 (multiple dwelling) use
in an R-2.(two.family structures) district. Therefore, all City
Code sections quoted are for the property's actual "use" in an R-2
zoning district. This apartment is about 23 feet from each side
.lot line. The building is 38 feet from the property line. The
present code, which came after the building was constructed, calls
for a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The ratio is based on two
one -bedroom units, one two-bedroom unit, and one three-bedroom unit.
The parking suggested would be similar to what's existing, with
9 ft x 20 ft stalls to abut the boulevard, but not be in the
boulevard. Eight (8) stalls at nine feet wide would equal 72 feet
of parking width on this 82 foot lot. Staff suggests that a
four (4) foot setback from the side property line to the parking
stall be maintained, (See Exhibit A).
Parking in the side yard is impractical. There is -space in the
rear yard for two parking stalls without a variance. The terrain
would make entering the rear yard difficult unless the alley
were used for access.
APP LS COW4ISSION MEETING - MARCH 149 1 78 Page 8
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, that the Appeals
Commission recommend approval of the request for variances of the
Fridley City Code as follows:
Section 205.075,1,E,1 to allow the required off-street parking
-stalls to be zero feet to the front property line;
Section 205.075912D9.to reduce the required parking stall width
from ten feet to nine feet, and square footage from 200 square
feet to 180 square feet, to allow 9 ft by 20 ft parking stalls;
Section 205.07591,E,3, to allow the parking stalls to be located
four feet from the front side property lines;
Section 205.138,5, to allow the location of a garbage receptacle
screened and on hard surface in the front yard, rather than the
required side or back yard;
to allow the continuing use of the front yard parking and dumpster
locations on Lot 26 and 27, Block 8, Hyde Park, the same being
6035 Main Street NE, Fridley, Minnesota.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously at 8:42 P.M.
3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 205.0.53259B, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OF AN
EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND A PROPOSED TUCK UNDER GARAGE, WHICH
BOTH OPEN ON A SIDE STREET, FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO 20 FEET;
AND SECTION 205.053,3, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY
THE MAIN BUILDING AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 250 to 26.4jo, TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING WITH A TUCK -UNDER GARAGE
(SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PER -IIT, SP'#78-03 FOR A
SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING), TO BE LOCATED ON'LOT 15, AND THE
SOUTHERLY 15 FEET OF LOT 149 PLY14OUTH ADDIT.ION, THE SAME BEING
4600 2ND STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY HARVEY ROLSTAD,
.4608 2nd STREET NE, FRIDLEY MINNESOTA 55421).
MOTION by Mr. Barna; 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 8:47 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT.
'A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RE2UIREMENT:'
Section 205.053,49B2 requiring that any attached .or unattached
accessory building which opens on the side street should be at
least 25 feet from the property line on the side street,
The purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without
encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic
consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the building line of
site encroachment into the neighbor's front yard.
APPEALS C0124ISSION MEETING - MARCH 142 1978 Pare 9
Section 205.053,3, limiting lot coverage in a residential area
to 25/ of the lot.
The purpose served is to eliminate the condition of overcrowding
of residential areas.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
If I make the corner Lot three
lot line into the driveway up
the house smaller, it will be
six people.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW°J:
feet bigger, it would move the
to the old house; and if I make
too small for a family of
This variance item is subject to the approval of a lot split and
a Special Use Permit for a second accessory building. Staff has
recommended a 62 ft. - 58 ft. split which would negate the need
for a lot coverage variance. The existing 22 ft x 30 ft garage
would remain, with a new tuck -under garage added to the proposed
house. The tuck under garage would open on to 46th Street.
House plans are not available at this writing.
Please note also, that a 58 foot lot, rather than a 55 foot lot,
would move the garage back three feet to make it 23 feet from the
side yard. property line. The boulevard is approximately 12 feet.
Chairperson Schnabel explained that the Special Use Permit request
would.appear before the Planning Commission on March 22, 1978. She
said the request was being made to allow a second accessory building
in addition to a neer house with a tuck -under garage tobe constructed.
She said that the Lot Split request would also be heard by the
Planning Commission on March 22, 1978.
Mr. Moravetz said that Staff felt the
make recommendations on the variance made
He said that both variance requests were
anticipate any problems.
Appeals Commission could
subject to the Lot Split.
reasonable and Staff didn't
Chairperson Schnabel explained where the existing house and
`garage were located on a sketch the Commission had available. She
said that the petitioner owned the entire property in question. She
said that Mr. Rolstad wanted to split the property thereby creating
a separate building site incorporating the existing garage with.the
newly created building site.
CITY OF FPIDLFY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. -E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE (612)571.3450
April 18, 1978
Richard Warren Hart
6035 Main Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
bear ter. Hart':
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Re: Variances for 6035 Main Street
On April 3, 1978 , the Fridley City Council.
officially approved your request for variances
�. with the stipulations listed below.
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and
return one copy to the City of Fridley.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call
the Community Development Office az 571-3450.
ly,
CITY PLFiNt'ER
JLB/de
Stipulations-
1. Parking to be blacktopped and curbed
2. Rubish containers to be screened
3. Improvements to be coordinated with street improvement projects
4.' Completed no later than September 15, 1978
Concur with action taken.