The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 03.75City of 14 r•idley AT THE TOP OF fHE TWINS - � ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. { PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. T "`I CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 SUM CT , APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER REV. 910-F23 1 DATE 3/21/75 I -AGE OFAnVROVED 1 2 toy 800 NamAodlvell Address Ute/ sem PhoneS7/ A/: aA41?4 Legal Description Lot No. IBlock No. jTract or Adc1p., Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of pro erty showin/g- building, variances, etc., where applicable) g ` cam.' G'� /� ,>fo,�. �i�''y� ✓/° �ii�i ��' ✓Le�0r7s .� Q�/j�Qs �u✓s si4��ti 6"� 6/'I \/!// "' �,"so""""�JC Date Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. o y� Si � C v Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date F=1111111 City of Fridley buojKf AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS L, I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r (Sta£1 Report) r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. { �•"� CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �'•"'�' �'� NUMMA ►+ev. DATE PA(A OF APPTTOVLO 8V 612.560.3450 910-F'23 1 3/21/75 2 2 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by 2-9'7y List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date To Attend v Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet.notifPd� �� Nares%� e Date By Whom Ph a or hsail Not ied " s '5Z/Co� 112 ) /- - 2/l aid 6,c)(00-a cQ —o2'1CI _ kZl 14&B IU,a &J-0.', G.A X 0 J AJ 'I P �� .�+r....+ �.a • a+naav VVl'u'11UJ1V1Y pJrralJ.14U Vr 'JUNG ey, ly(o FAUN b i 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 36.7' or 371. Mrt. 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 ALLOW TENANT OF? -STREET PARKING 1N THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-2 (T -WO FA:•,ILY DWELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 65,CITY VIE --Y ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY, MIMESUTA 55432). (Request by Mr. & Mirs. Peter Neururer, 6501 - 7114 Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428). 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 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 REVIEtd: Depressed curbing was installed in the front of this h-Plex 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, facing 57th Avenue N.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 -*flex apartment building next door to the West is 46 feet from the building at 390 S7th 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 require joint agreement with the neighbor to the 1.1est. In as much as the neighbor to the West is scheduled before the Appeals Commission with a sinilar 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. :fir. and :ire•. Neururer approached the Board and said they had bcught 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--Plex 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 Fir. 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 f to appear before the Appeals Commission on their next agenda. &FRIDLEY APPEALS CUMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 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 C 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 361 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 4 stall garage at 390 57th Place R.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. t April 26, 196b - 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 31 1966 - 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 ii 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. Vk(IJ)Lr.Y APPEA13 CUMMISSIOn MEETING OF JUNE 29, 197b PAVE 9 Chairperson Schnabel said tnat they had to keep doth 4-Plexes in mired, as they 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 Mr. 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 Firs. 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. Kevi�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 C..� 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 'rix. 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 w'ny 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 Air. Neururer replied that he plowed it himself. Mr. Kemper asked where he put the snow, and Mr. Neururer said no further on the grass than he had to. Mrs. 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 VRIDLEY APPEALS ConvasSION i -%L rING OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAGE 10 said the tenants that already lived there were used to it.. Airs. 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. Mr. Kemper said he would like this correct number of tenants with two cars noted in the record. Chairperson Schnabel said that the existing code *,-.ould 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. Jr. 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, 13 2 & 3, talking about boulevards. Chairperson Schnabel said that what they came dowm to was since parking would be prohibited on the boulevard, it would be a reouirement 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 alloy 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 them at the same time. Airs. Schnabel said that because the two buildings were adjacent, even though r they had separate oihers, they were the only two on that side of the street \ and should both be considered at the same time. Air. 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 sirge he does not have a garage. Mr. Plemel 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. Airs. 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 Mx. 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 whole picture instead of just part of it. - Mr. Barna asked if they would go with a well-maintained parking area in the front, and Airs. Neururer replied they would, and said they had plans to black top it. There was some discussion as to if Air. and Firs. 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. ,FRIDLEY APPEALS COPRIiSSION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 1976 PAGE 11, 140TION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission table this request until the next scheduled meeting on July 13, 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. ADJOURNMEivT : Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the Appeals Commission meeting of June 29,.19.76 at 9:33 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sherri O'Donnell Secretary C FRIDLE1 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Barna, Pat Gabel, Dick Kemper MMIBERS ABSENT: Virginia Schnabel, Jim Plemel OTHERS RKh3ENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Gabel at 7:29 P.M. APPROVAL OF.JUNE 29, 1976 APPEALS COMMISSION.MINUTES:.. Chairperson Gabel stated that this item would have to wait until the next meeting of the Appeals Commission as none 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: RE)UEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (32B) FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENANT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING It-PLEX, ZONED R-2 .('V.40 FAMILY D NTELLING AREAS)., LOCATED ON LOTS 14 AND 15, BLACK 6, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 390 57TH PLACE N.E., FRIDLEY,, MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Neururer, 6501 743g Avenue North,,. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428). 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.065, (3,B) rRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW TENAPT OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-2 (TWO FAMILY D19ELLING AREAS), LOCATED ON LOTS -12 AND 13, BLOCK 6, 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. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 390 57th Place N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMEwT: Section. 205.065, 3,B. No parking stall small 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, IVIG ritub e d 'V B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner advised by the City Engineering Department that provision had been made to continue acces.s to these existing stalls, but only contingent upon application and approval of the appropriate variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIal: Depressed curbing was installed in the front of this 4 -Plea 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 It parking stalls. It is located 40 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 West 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 adrive n y from front to rear could be installed. This would require a joint agreement with the neighbor to the West. In as much as the neighbor to the gest 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, 32 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 REVIE:J: 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 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 CUI-1MISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE 3 single bedroom units, which require a total of 7.5 parking stalls. The 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 approve 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 of regarding the concerns of the Engineering Department in this matter. Staff feels that'a.lthough 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. C Chairperson Gabel read the following memo to Ron Holden from Thomas Colbert dated July 9th, 1976 on the subject of variance requests at 390 and 380 57th Place: In conjunction with.Board reviewal of the above referenced variances,' some additional information has been derived for consideration in dis- position of these 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 -tray 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 wivh 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." Fxiva APPEALS CUMMISSION MEerING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE: 4 Mr. and tars. 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 360 57th Place, and Mrs. Johnson said that the two-bedroom units usually had two cars and the single unit usually one. Mrs. Uabel said then there would usually be seven cars there, ana 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 801 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. Mr. Barna asked if the renters were usually young couples, and Firs. 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. Neururer 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 Yridley 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 buildingsain the City are using front parking facilities now. He 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 57t', . . FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION 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 1, 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 a� 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 zoom in the rear and the length of the lot, there would be room to install parking. He added that possibly a couple of trees would be lost, but not all of them, by a matter of design of the parking facility. He said that the neighbor next door had fewer 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 joclm5dmg 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 ghat to do, but they could say there were alternatives to parking in the front. — C Tir. 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. 2�r. Kemper asked how many cars could park in that suggested area, and Mr. Holden answered ten cars Chairperson 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. tir. 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 would 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 apartnent number on the curbing for each stall. Mrs. Johnson stated that suggestion would wipe 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 COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 1976 PAGE. 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 Mr. 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 expensesinvolved 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. M•Ir. 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 letter he indicated it would cost approximately $1,000 to put the normal curb back up, and asked Mr. Holden how much it would cost to put it back just in front of 390. Mr. Holdeh answered it would cost about $300 to $400, 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 had a garage wish 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 3802 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 shd replied she did. r!r. 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 1ja; Ur JULY 139 1976 M& 7 •' she wished the other petitioner was Mr. Holden said he hadn't heard from the other owners,. but at the last meeting they said they mi ht be on vaca- tion for six weeks and may not be able to attend. g Mr. Barna_ stated that the city looked at this as one Said he agreed. Mr. Kemper added that if they had to decision he be in favor of it. � and Mr. Kemper s would MOTION by Kemper, seconded by barnato recommend to Council requests for variances to allow off"street 1 approval of the h-Plexes at both 380 and 390 57th Place N.E., Fridley, with thent Of tfolloiiti. Provisions: owing I. That the stipulations contained in Mr. Colbert's mem be incorporated. o of July 9, 1976, • 2. That thearkin P g 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 far services. private snow plowing 5. Council is reminded that this variance does incur 10.5 feet of city property. an encroachment of Mr. Kemper stated that he felt the only alternative to thih' construction with a lot of black top in back of this buis would be distastefulg, and that would be the worst of two evils. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Kemper and Barna voting aye, Gabel voting na the carried 2 - 1. y, motion Chairperson Gabel said that while it isnot as two individual items. She stated she approved granting the variance practical to do so, she saw these 380, but not 390. She explained to Mrs. Johnson that this would for - City Council on July 26th. go before the 3. REQUEST FOR A VARIAnGE OF SECTION 205.075, 11 (E21) FRIDLEY CITY ALLOW TENANT AND GUST OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE rRUNT YARD OF ANCEXI� TO Lt-PLEX, ZUIVED R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) STING BLOCK 13 AUS ADDITION, THE SAriE BEINU 106 _ ), LOCATED ON LOT 1, OTA. (Request by Paul Burkholder, 7860 Alden7WayjaN EAY N, FridleDLEY,-NIINNES- 55A32) . Fridley, Minnesota Mr. Holden stated that Mr. Burkholder had called and asked that this i Postponed until the next meeting of the Appeals Commission. tem be 4. REQUEST Fun A VARIANCE OF SECTION 23.4. 053, 29 THE 100 SQUARE MEET MAXIMujjSIZE OA' A FREE STAING F ES CITy CODE, TU RAISE (GENERAL SHOPPING AREAS), TO 108 SQUARE r'EET, TO NG SI A 12 C -2S ZONING FOOT r! FRiliLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING " JULY 272 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Virginia Schnabel, Alex barna, Jim Plemel MEMBERS ABSENT: None t �J -� tf Pat Gabe ick Kemper, OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer 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, 4th 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 AwD GUEST OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF " EXISTING 4-PLEX, ZONED R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DI LLINGS), LOCATED ON LOT 11 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,1) 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. 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 A . r, Page 2 2 It r; 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 ?7th 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 cafe 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. F • Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of July 27, 1976 Page 3 • 2 B Mr. Kemper asked why the street was designated no parking anytimet 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 any 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 1 t. 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. 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 suit -line 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 C , 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 27s 1976 Page 14 2 C �I 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. Sarna 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'it 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 lacing 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 l 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 MAXl.TIUM SIZE OF A FREE STANDING SIGN IN C -2S ZONING (GENERAL SHOPPING AREAS), TO 108 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT INFORMATION SIGN TU BE ADDED TO AN EXISTING 96 SQUARE FOOT SIGNS 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., FRIDLEY, MINNESUTA. (Request by the Tovm Crier Pancake House, 7730 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, 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. r 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. 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: Ej 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 eats 24 and 25, Block 8, Hyde Park, the same being 6021 Main Street N.E. (Request by Mr. Rodney M. Waara, 6021 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 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 24 and 25, Block 8, Hyde Park, the same being 6021 Main Street N.E., Fridley, Mn. (Request by Mr. Rodney M. Waara, 6021 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 6021 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 pQ1,1ution in the front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in compliance with the Fridley City pakking Code would create a hardship since the only feasible area to provide parking on the property is in the front yard - just off the street. The sides and rear of the property are .tc» sloping and low to be used for parking." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This four-plex 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. CITY OF FRIOL EY, SUBJECT MirYNE:3SOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW Ueport nt/ " isloo�ro' Number Rev page Approved by Date ENOFILA�7DRES FILE DATECOMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST� RETURN TO PLANNING OUE ATE r/7x COMMENTS JALdr 17fi A.,.Or ¢ e®v,-® he 15 /UoT I� 1�i�9�C� %gGTPiIidF1T�.�v6GE-sem A��.�or/wL o , e 5 J az.�E,yp.'7 p, "'17 Z dig7 p m 1 7 PiOATnNCI // FARM SURVEYING; M. J. BERSCHEID / #gfti kd amd g' � k _ PHON8 PARKWAY 44893 3644 TWRNtY-8ECoNltl AVENUE SouYN • 1 NEAPOUS 7. MINm S I 4: or z s .4 -d/ - y� I hereby rtify that ti cry�y.! �z* �v' Of �,otS 24 cid 23, arc � � � e � _o% /'4y� j. :ab.LLila4r' 0/ L� j + a 1�2 wi 4a "`l� 4 ` v x. i *gyp � V `o r wi 7 �'f3cti Ir th,,,3 Zrt.; day. of 04tabsr, 19600 ° "�• J1-Berschelds .4 _...tom„` of q.. ` y Item #1 March 14, 1978 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6021 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. 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.ipurpose 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 bne-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. i � I i I I i j C:173 j I � St?mss E j @ RR 1 0 C? d , j i 41 -APPEALS I CQfSS1014 M IN61 M6�H il 4 1 q17 i I } I I { i ► ! it I I ! - -! I i 39° i , I 1 I 041 { � ► ! it ! ! - -! I i 39° i , I 7IM! C I J-- F- I Nzkl IImof �. I I� i E! j I i� I i} i i- l ` I I I�; I ��'t FRIM Ey 1 { j j i I BOARD W A PPEALS I � � � � � C I � �f } 'II i ! I ! 1 f l' HISIT No Ek IVECTING DATE r 041 ► _C 4 ! ! - -! I i 39° i , I FRIM Ey 1 { j j i I BOARD W A PPEALS I � � � � � C I � �f } 'II i ! I ! 1 f l' HISIT No Ek IVECTING DATE r I CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPH-ONE (612)571-3450 April 18, 1978 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE I Rodney Waara 6021 Main Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Waara On Aril 3 1978. officially approved your request for with the stipulations listed below. .0. Re: Variances for 6021 Main Street. the Fridley City Council 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 at 571-3450. Sincerely, OLD L. . , r JLB/de :fid CITY PLANNER Stipulations: I. Parking be blacktopped and curbed 2. Rubish container be screened .3. Improvements toe coordinated with street improvement projects. 4. Completed no later than September 15, 1978 Concur with action taken. APPEALS_COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY* 14, 1978 Page 6 Ms. Gabel explained that tabling the item would be for Mr': Johnson's protection. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to table the request for a variance of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.075, 19 E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from a lot line, from five feet to zero feet, to allow the continuation of existing parking as is, on Lots 14 and 15, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 5800-2-1 Street NE, Fridley, Mn. Mr. Kemper said that he was not ready to suggest a ruling on the request. He didn't feel that the ground rules were actually known. He said that very likely the request was worded in the manner that Staff felt it should have been worded; however, he felt.that there were some loose ends that should be straightened out before any formal ruling was made. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. At the petitioner's request, Chairperson Schnabel indicated that the item would be tabled until March 28, 1978. She told Mr. Johnson that it would appear as the first item on the agenda. Chairperson Schnabel asked that Staff renotify Mr. Johnson of the March 28, 1978, meeting. Chairperson Schnabel reiterated the questions that the Appeals Commission had regarding the Variance Request: 1) Does the City permit parking on boulevard properties? 2) Is a Variance required to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7.5 to 4, if the City does not permit parking on boulevards? 3) Can the Appeals Commission act on a'variance for parking on boulevards? Chairperson Schnabel said that with the questions the Appeals Commission wants to know the legal status of the questions because they want to know which direction to take in terms to their recommendations to City Council. 2. CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: 0rjU11U114 GU- Uv21 _).Dq TU 111AAW TUTS ±GWU1X1";ll RAIIKING STALLS TO BE LOCAT iAD IN THE REOUIRED FROFf=A D TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING—PARKING �� LOTS 24 and.25, BLOCK 8, HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 6021 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN. ( RL?UEaT BY MR. RODNEY M. WAARA, 6021 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MN 55432). MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Bearing was opened at 8:47 P.M. APPALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 14-j 1928 Page 5 Mr. Kemper said that the problem was that the variance request as it was constituted, if approved, wouldn't solve the problem,- He roblem..He said that the variance request was not directed properly. Chairperson Schnabel said that part of the problem was that Fridley City Code Section 205.075, General Provisions, only addressed off street parking that was prohibited in the following areas: 1) Any portion of the required front yard; 2) Using over 2/3 of the required rear yard; 3) Any closer to a lot line than five feet; 4) Any closer to a main building than five feet. She said that the particular Section did not specify parking in boulevards. She felt that Parking in the Boulevards was the issue to be considered. Mr. Kemper wanted to know where in the City Code it was written that a person couldn't park in the boulevard. Chairperson Schnabel indicated that as long as there was no permanent structure on the boulevard, there was nothing in the Codes that said specifically that a person could not park in the boulevard. Mr. Barna wanted to know why Mr. Johnson needed any variance.. Mr. Moravetz said that the variance was needed along the West property line adjacent to the alley. Mr. Kemper asked ,that was to be done regarding the requirement of 7.5 parking stalls and Mr. Johnson only actually having four parking stalls. He said that if the variance was granted then what was being said was that Mr. Johnson would have eight stalls, four on his property and four on the boulevard. Mr. Kemper said that the item bothered him. Chairperson Schnabel said that there should have been a variance request to reduce the number of parking stalls from the required 7.5 stalls to four. Chairperson Schnabel suggested the tabling of the item until more research could be done on several confusing issues. She explained to Mr. Johnson that the Commission had questions dealing with the interpretation of the Ordinance. She said that the Commission wasn't clear as to how the Ordinances addressed the subject of parking on the boulevard. She also said that perhaps Mr. Johnson should have had another variance, request which would have been to reduce the number of stalls provided from 7.5 to 4) which he actually was providing. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 14, 1278 Pace 7 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 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. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in compliance with the Fridley City parking Code would create a hardship since the only feasible area to provide parking on the property is in the front yard - just off the street. The sides and rear of the property are too sloping and low to be used for parking." Cr ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This four-plex 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 7.5 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. Mr. Rodney M. Waara of 6021 Main Street NE, Fridley, MN was present at the meeting. Mr. Moravetz indicated that the petitioner would be able to allow for seven parking, stalls without aside yard variance request, but he noted that Mr. Waara would still be 1/2 car stall short of the requirement. He suggested that the Appeals Commission could recommend the approval of the parking lot all the way to the North lot line of 6035 straight through to the South lot line of 6021 Main Street. He said that would allow for the proper parking ratio for both buildings. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that Mr. .Waara was not encroaching into the boulevard and that he was providing six parking stalls. She asked how many cars the tenants presently owned. ,,Wr-. APPEALS COMMISSION MRETING - FrBRUARY 141 1978 Page 8 Mr. Waara said that the tenants presently owned seven cars. He said ,that eight stalls were actually being provided in the parking lot. He said that his lot was 80 feet wide and it was possible -.for eight cars to park across the property. Ms. Gabel said that to do as Mr. Moravetz had suggested would have to be in'agreement by both property owners. (6021 & 6035 Main Street). Mr. Kemper pointed out that something had to be resolved since'the required number of parking spaces were not being provided. Mr. Moravetz said that Mr. Waara's building did have a unique situation'due to the terrain to the rear of the building. He said that parking had to be provided at the front of the building. Mr. Moravetz said that the parking lot would have to be expanded from the°�present 60 feet to 70 feet by maintaining five feet of green area on the side -yards. He said that it still wouldn't solve the. parking requirement of 7.5 parking stalls. Chairperson Schnabel said that it would be possible to recommend to City Council the waiving of the .5 foot required stall. Mr. Waara said that the properties at 6021 and 6035 Main Street shared a trash receptacle that was located on the center island that was being talked about being eliminated. Mr. Moravetz said that 6035 Main Street would also have to obtain five foot side yard variances to obtain the 7.5 parking stalls required. He said that there would still be the possibility of maintaining a ten foot island between properties and the trash container could remain on that island. He felt it would be aestheticall pleasing having some green area to the front of the building. Chairperson Schnabel read the City Ordinance regarding Refuse Containers. Mr. laara pointed out that the trash receptacle was located in the front of the building because the rear of the building was not easily accessible. 11e said that he had owned the buildi�i for two years and he had assumed that the City of Fridley had been aware of the location of the trash receptacle and how it was emptied. Mr. Waara felt that completely eliminating the center island was the best solution to the problem. He said that the trash recept.icle coulc? bo properly screened and placed on a desi.Lnzted area on the black -top. APPEALS COMMISSION'MEETING - FETRUARY 14 1978 Page 9 r 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 14, 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 oviners 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 o.f asphalting the entire parking area as a joint venture. He said that they were 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 - FEEBR1TARY '14, 1978 Pare 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 3B9 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 & 252 Block 8, Hyde Parks the same being 6021 Main Street NE, Fridley, MN, until March 14, 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 1L5 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 recepticle in the front yard and required screening of same. 3. A REtW- EST FOR A VARIN'T. L __QYT_2Q_*OG5, 3B, TO ALLOW THE REPUIRED OFF -STRUT P� AP17IivG STI LLS TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING PARKING AS IS, ON LOTS 26 & 272 BLOCK 8, 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 Hs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to continue the request until March 147 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. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH.14, 1978 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Schnabel called the March 14, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Plemel, Kemper, Schnabel, Barna Members Absent: Gabel Others Present: Clyde Moravetz, Engineering Department APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14, 1978 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to approve the Appeals Commission minutes of February 14, 1978• Mr. Barna asked that the sixth paragraph on Page 8 be changed to read, "Chairperson Schnabel said that it would be possible to recommend to City Council the waiving of the i stall of the requirement." UPON.A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The minutes were received at 7:38 P.M. 1. TABLED: 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 THAN 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-13 TO ALLOW THE PARKING STALLS TO BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LI14E 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 AND 25, BLOCK 8, HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 6021 TRE, NE, DL , MINNESOTA. {REQUEST BY ROD14EY M. WAAR , 6021 MAIN STREET VE, FRIDLEY, MN 554321. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that the variance requests had been amended and suggested that the Public Hearing be re -opened. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the.motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:44 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 142 1978 Pale 2 r. - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6021 1 -lain 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 8 Ofoot 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. APPF..ALS COMMISSION MEETING —MARCH 14, 1978 Page 3 Chairperson Schnabel reminded the Commission members that the adjacent property owned by Mr. Richard Warren Hart, 6035 Main Street'NE, was basically tied -in with this property. She explained that even though there were two separate owners, the alignment of the dumpster and parking stalls would be similar. Mr. Waara said that the requests by himself and Mr: Hart were basically identical. He asked if Mr. Hart could review this with the Commission at the same time. Mr. Richard Warren Hart was present at the meeting and agreed to discuss the requests in conjunction with Mr. Waara.- Mr. Moravetz explained a sketch that staff had drawn up. He said that City definitely wanted to maintain the indicated island. He said by doing so, it would leave each of the property owners with their own private parking area. He indicated that the dumpster could either be placed east of the island area, properly screened, and shared by the two buildings, or that each of the property owners could have 'separate dumpsters located on a blacktop area. Mr. Moravetz explained that the reason the City wanted to maintain the island was the fact that if a continuous parking lot were'allowed on the properties in question, the same thing could be requested to the South of the properties and the area could end up with 3/4 of the block of continuous parking area. He also said that with the continuous parking lot, there would be the potential danger of people utilizing that parking area as an additional traffic lane. Mr. Moravetz also explained the three alternatives Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart had.regarding the paving .of their parking areas. 1) They could, of course, obtain the services of any contractor they so choose to-do the work, at any time. He said.that the City strongly advised them -not to pave until after the street was paved because the final surface grade had not been established. He said that the parking lot surface grade would have to match ) the street surface grade. 2) They could wait and negotiate with the street contractor. He said that if they chose to wait and coordinate with the street contractor it would result in a better looking job in that it would be paved continuously with the street' and there would be fewer seams or joints or any problems with.the surface grades.. 3) They could petition the City to improve their parking lots. He said that the City would negotiate with the contractor in performing the bituminous work. He explained that to utilize the third option, the City would have to obtain easements from the petitioners in order to do work on private property.. He felt it would be best to have the petitioners, themselves, negotiate with the contractors. APPEALSTOMMIssioll Mt f i / I j ; � i i , t i I i I ( ; ( ( j�� 1 i �� 'i � j ;. 1 j j j I i t i 1 � 1 4-- 141 FP\IDLFY BOAND OF.APPF.,"%L9 Lux D IT No- *V� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 149 1978 Pale, 4 Mr. Moravetz indicated that along with -the bituminous work would be the requirement of a six inch vertical poured concrete.curb. He said that gutters would not be required, but that the poured concrete curbing would be required on all three sides of the two lots. Mr. Waara said that they were not interested in two separate dumpsters. He also said that they were not interested in maintaining the eight foot island that was being proposed by the city. He explained that they presently had continuous parking on the two lots with the dumpster located in the middle of the two properties. He didn't feel that the island was practical. He said that the dumpster could be emptied conveniently without infringing ozi any of the parking spaces, He felt that the island would necessitate the requesting of some residents in the buildings not to park at that location on Tuesdays and Fridays and he felt that was a very unreasonable thing to expect of the residents. Mr. Hart also indicated that he did not like the idea of the eight foot proposed island. Mr. Kemper felt that the type of things that were being discussed should have been ironed out with Staff before it got before the Appeals Commission. He said that. he had the impression that the petitioners were not in agreement with what Staff.had proposed. He questioned why these disagreements weren't ironed out previously. Mr. Waara explained that originally when he came to City Hall to make the variance requests he had been told that he could make the request and that Staff would "fill" in all the section numbers, etc. He said that he wanted to be able to park in the front of the building because it would be impractical to park -any place else; and secondly he wanted to eliminate the side yard setback requirement. He said that he was told that the side yard could be reduced to zero and that was what he wanted to do. Mr. Waara explained that he wanted his side property line reduced to zero foot setback and that Mr. Hart wanted his side property line setback reduced to zero. Chairperson Schnabel said that if the petitioner was not content with what the Appeals Commission decided that night, he should contact Mr, Moravetz between then and when the item would be heard ,by City Council and between the two of them they could arrive at a more palatable recommendation. Mr. Moravetz indicated that the sketch was merely the best recommendation that Staff could make. He said it was not necessarily one that the Commission had to agree upon. He said that even if it was decided to eliminate the proposed island the petitioners would have to restrict parking in that area. Mr. Hart said that was the location that they wanted to put the dumpster. He said that no one parked at that location presently and so no one would have to be put out of a parking space. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 14, 1978 Page .5 Mr. Barna suggested that the entire island be blacktop. He said that the dumpster could then be located at that site. He said that there would be full curbs at the sides of the island and a depression in the center of it for access by the trash trucks. He said that with the eleven foot boulevard and the dumpster being located four to five feet back from the boulevard, there would be approximately 15 feet between the street and the dumpster. He said that the dumpster would be properly and attractively screened with access for the tenents at the rear of the screening. Mr. Waara asked if it would be practical to put curbing around that island, even though the entire area was to be blacktop. Mr. Barna said that the curbing would eliminate anyone parking in front of the dumpster area. He said that the curbs would also help prevent the tenants from banging into the fence that would be put up around the dumpster. He said the curbs would also prevent the dumpster driver from banging into any cars that could be parked close to the dumpster. Mr. Barna felt that by utilizing curbing, blacktop, definite strip and definite entry area, it would eliminate the hazardous conditions that could exist. He also felt that it would look very attractive. Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart said that they were not opposed to the suggestions. Chairperson Schnabel wanted to review with the petitioners the individual requests to be sure they were in agreement at that time: "To allow the required off-street parking stalls to be closer to the front property line than the required five feet.t' Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart agreed that the wanted to park zero feet from the westerly front property line. "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 g ft x 20 ft parking stalls.rf Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart said that it was agreeable with them. "To allow the parking stalls to be closer to the side yard property line than five feet." Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart wanted both their side yard property lines reduced to four feet. "To allow the location of a garbage receptacle in the front yard, rather than the required side or back yard." Mr. Waara and Mr. Hart said that they wanted the trash receptacle located in the front yard, between the two buildings. APPEALS COMMISSION- MEETING -.MARCH 14, 1978 Page 6 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 205.075,1,E,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 205.075,1,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 redravi 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 205.0750,E91, TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED'OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS TO BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN 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,E,E,3, TO ALLOW THE PARKING STALLS TO BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN 5 FEET; AND SECTION'205.138,51 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 279 BLOCK 89 HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEING 6035 MAIN STREET NE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST -BY RICHARD WARREN 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. 5. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 14, 1978 Page 7 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6035 Main Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: , Section 205.075,1,E919 prohibiting parking in required front yard. The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. Section 205.075919E,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 205.0750,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.