VAR 09.790
0
0
V'4. 0� 79
. ,
City of Fridley
suBjEcr
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
;
1 4 -
•"COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
�'1 • CITY HALL FRIDLEY - 55432
612-560-3450
APPLICATION TO BOARD
OF APPEALS
NUMBER
910-F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE
11
OF
,2
APPROVED BY
800
Name Address
Phone
Legal
Description
Lot No.
Block No.
ITractor Addn.
Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey
of property
showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)
CA-
V
00
Date
Mee in Date Fee Receipt No. Signature
y� rig ���
Comments & Recommendations by
the Board of Appeals
City Council Action and Date
� .2tGLL %Od--ccx., k�—eac�e-�-cep
City of Fridley
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
SUHJtCt
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
�L ��_��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
L PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
"1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432
612-560-3450
(Staff Report)
NUMHER
910—F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE OF
2 2
APPROVED by
800
Staff Comments
Board members notified of meeting by
�'� % List members,
date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans
to attend hearing. Plan
Name
DaVe To Attend
Pearson making appeal and the following property
owners having
property within
200
feet notified:
By Whom
M/M Angelo Manos,7440 Concerto Curve N.E.
Mr. Carl J. Biernat, 7436 Concerto Curve N.E.
M/M William Ouellette, 7432 Concerto Curve N.E.
Date
13/
/
Phone or Mail
--I_
Notified
'A �/
M/M George Bradford, 7547 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M Roger Hall, 7545 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M Clifford Carlson,7543 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M William Forester, 7539 Tempo Terrace NE
M/M Ronald Pederson,7535 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M Joseph Proast,7531 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M Gerald Morris, 7529 Tempo Terrace N.E.
M/M Erwin Kish, 7462 Melody Drive N.E.
M/M Alvin Eicher, 7466 Melody Drive N.E.
M/M Bruce Danielson, 7472 Melody Drive N.E.
`-M/M Herbert Johnson, 7476 Melody Drive N.E.
M/M Alvin Sadecki, 7482 Melody Drive N.E.
-M/M Gerald Holmer, 7486 Melody Drive N.E.
M/M Joseph Shrake,7490 Melody Drive N.E.
N/M Robert Strong, 7489 Melody Drive N.E.
1/M George Green, 7485 Melody Drive N.E.
7/M John Miller, 7479 Melody Drive N.E.
_ I/M Gerome Wiss, 7475 Melody Drive N.E.
i/M Russell Peterson, 7467 Melody Drive N.E.
;/M Paul Stopka, 7463 Melody Manor Drive N.E.
"-M/M Harold Johnson, Jr., 7534 Tempo Terrace N.E.
ftVM Lowell Erickson, 7536 Tempo Terrace N.E.
199, Mrs. Howard Rassier,7540 Tempo Terrace N.E.
#)o Mrs. John Podeszwa, 7542 Tempo Terrace N.E.
&�,$hirley Quien, 7544 Tempo Terrace N.E.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the
will conduct a public hearing in
Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on
following:
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
September 7, 1979
Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
the City Council Chambers at 6431 University
Tuesday, September 18, 1979, in regard to :the
Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205
of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front
yard setback from the required 35 feet to 27.2
feet to allow an 8.foot by 20 foot addition to
an existing attached garage, so that part of the
existing garage can be used for a family room
addition, located on Lot 31, Block 4, Melody
Mannor 4th Addition, the same being 7476 Melody
Drive N.E.
Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be
given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
VIRGINIA SCHNASEL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEALS CQMMI$$-IQN
Note; The Appeals CoromissfQn will have the final action on this request.
unless th.ere are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or
the petitioner does not agree with. the Commission's decision. If any of
these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through
the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission.
9
W
f:J
Item #5 September 18, 1979
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7476 Melody Drive N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet
Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street
parking without encroaching on the public right of way and also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to add on a family mom. In order to do this we need to take
8 feet out of the back of our existing garage; add on an additional 12 feet
to create a family room. The entrance to the room from the house via door
which was originally used to enter garage from house. Also we want to add
an additional 8 feet to front of garage to maintain a double size garage.
We could not accomplish a room with a direct entrance without using said
amount of garage area. Thus we are limited on the amount of footage we
can go out the back and still have a direct entrance."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: e
The existing structure is setback 35.2 feet from the front property line.
The addition would make the setback 27.2 feet from the front property line.
The houses along this street were all proposed to be set back. at the 35 foot
minimum. If the Board moves to approve this request, the staff has no
stipulations to recommend.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 9
Ms. Schnabel asked how the roof lines will tie in.
Mrs. Kozlack said they already have a gable roof and this should tie in with the
addition. There is a basement under the addition.
Ms. Schnabel asked the audience for comments.
Mr. Bruce Nedegaard said he was a neighbor and very much in favor of the addition.
He stated this neighborhoodwas mainly older homes on smAller lots and the general
trend wasto fix these homes, thus making it a nicer neighborhood.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gable, to close the Public Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
Mr. Barna felt this addition would upgrade the home, and there are no visual problems
caused by it.
Ms. Gable concurred with this and also with what Mr. Nedegaard said about the people
doing a good job of upgrading the neighborhood.
Ms. Schnabel said she was confortable with the 10 foot variance in this particular
neighborhood, as this addition ties in with the rest of the neighborhood.
MOTION by Ms. Gable, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend- approval of the
variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the
front yard setback from the required 35 feet- to 25 feet, to allow the construction of
a 10 foot by 20 foot addition, with a fireplace, on Lot 1, Block 3, Rearrangement of
Blocks 13, 14 and 15, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4512 2nd Street NE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE
FRONT_ YARD, SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 27.2 FEET. TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT BY
20 FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, SO THAT PART OF THE EXISTING
GARAGE CAN BE USED FOR A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION. LOCATED ON LOT 31, BLOCK 4, MEL
MANOR 4TH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7476 MELODY DRIVE N.E. (Request by Herbert
C. Johnson, 7476 Melody Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432).
Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report—
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7476 Melody Drive N.E.
A..PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet
Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street
parking without encroaching on the public 'right' of way and also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 10
v
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to add on a family mom. In order to do this we need to take
8 feet out of the back of our existing garage; add on an additional 12 feet
to create a family room. The entrance td the room from the house via door
'which was originally used to enter garage from house. Also we*want to add
an additional 8 feet to front of garage to maintain a double size garage.
We could not accomplish a room with a direct entrance without using said
amount of garage area. Thus we are limited on the amount of footage we
can go out the back and still have a direct entrance."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The existing structure is setback 35.2 feet from the front property line.
The addition would make the setback 27.2 feet from the front property line.
The houses along this street were all proposed to beset back at the 35 foot
minimum. If the Board moves to approve this request, th.e staff has no
stipulations to recommend.
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Johnson were present for the request.
Mrs. Johnson said they would have to connect the addition to the home as shown on the
plans because of an existing kitchen door and bathroom, plus because of the pool in
the backyard.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they would be using part of the existing patio.
Mr. Johnson said about half or 12 feet. They would build a new patio later. He also
stated the addition in the front may only be 6 feet instead of 8 feet. Mrs. Johnson
said it wovid.have a gable roof in the front and a shed roof in the back so should
tie-in with the rest of the home nicely.
Ms. Schnabel asked how far the pool is from the house.
Mr. Johnson said 12 feet, give or take a foot.
Ms. Schnabel said the exception of the gable roof and door tie in, the addition could
go all the way back.
The petitioners said no because of the.pool, this would give them about 3 feet from
the pool to the addition. The pool -is almost impossible to move and the liner would
be ruined.
Ms.'Schnabel asked why the 2 foot Jog, was put in the front end of the addition.
Mr. Johnson replied to break up the wall visually on the outside and give storage
area inside.
Ms. Schnabel asked about entrances.
The petitioner said the door from the kitchen to the family room would be arched.
There would be no door from the family room -to the garage. The only way to get into
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER,18, 1979 'PAGE 12
_j
Mrs. Johnson said if Ms. Moses wanted this to come before Council she should have
contacted them. That seems to be the proper thing to do. She said she would not mind
the opposition if they had been here tonight. The notice sates this was a public
hearing and you are to be here to voice your opinion. In her opinion because of this
one phone call, Cheryl Moses got she made her decision and she was not even here to
voice it. She is their council member too and neither one of these people had the
nerve to walk into this room. She said she felt they had every right to be upset.
Ms. Schnabel said a problem like this puts the board in an ackward position. There
are people who have complained how a variance is handled and she has asked them if
they know of a better way to please tell the commission. She explained this to the
neighbor who called. She went on to say this board serves at the will of the Council,
the members are interested citizens charged with an obligation to other citizens. They,
do not like to see situations arise where neighbors end up on opposite poles because
of a variance request.
Mrs. Johnson said her main objection was that the notice states you have to be here,
and these 2 people are not. There was nothing in the notice about phone calls.
Ms. Schnabel said the notice does not say they have to be here. It reads . . . all
persons with an interest would be given an opportunity to be heard. She said they
have had people in the.past write letters to voice their feelings.
Mrs. Johnson said the, notice should be written as such then, stating in person, letter
or phone call. She said she was so disgusted she would like her $50 back and not
build. The delay will cost them money.
Mr. Moravetz said if the commission, city staff or neighbor objects, it goes automatically
to Council.
Mrs. Johnson said it does not seem fair that one person in.a neighborhood could stop
this. They will get stuck with higher costs if it was.delayed and they are the victims.
If it was a majority objecting they could understand that, but this one person and
her eouncil member who do not have the nerve to walk in here was upsetting.
Mr. Kemper said he thought she was assumming Cheryl Moses had already made a decision
on this. Perhaps she has many reasons for bringing this to Council, even perhaps
their best interest.
Mrs. Johnson said she would be here tonight then if bhe had their best interest in mind.
Ms. Schnabel said she should call Ms. Moses and discuss this with her, and raise some
of these points. But like Mr. Kemper said, she may have certain reasons why she did it
this way.
Mr. Johnson thought it was very poor on Ms. Moses part to contact the city -at -large
and not them also.
Mrs. Johnson said in.their own neighborhood there are many instances where people get
away with going agaist the ordinances and no one says anything. But you try to make a
change, and everyone says. something. If you go about something in the right way, one
person can stop it, which was not fair.
MOTION by Ms. Gable, seconded by Mr. Kemper to close the Public Hearing.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 11
the garage was.to go outside. The room size will be approximately 20 feet by 20 feet.
Mrs.. Johnson said the homes all have a 35 foot setback, but because the street is
curved you do not get a straight site view. The front addition would not stick out
and block someone's view.
Mr. Kemper asked about the floor plan and how many people live in the home.
Mr. Johnson said there are 4 bedrooms on the top level, living area on ground level
and a.small family room and laundry facility in the basement. There are no windows
and a fireplace in the basement family room making it seem very small and dark. He
said 4 persons live in the home.
Ms. Schnabel asked if anyone in the audience had comments. There were none.
Ms. Schnabel said she had received a phone call from a neighbor who did not want the
front addition. She was not concerned about the rear addition. Her reason being all
homes in the area have the same setback and this variance could set a presentient for
the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel said she had also been informed by the City staff that
the Councilperson for this ward called and asked to have this request sent on to
Council. Ms. Schnabel said because of those phones calls, she recommends the item
goes to Council.
Mrs. Johnson asked how this person making the -phone call can do this. If she is not
brave enough to come here tonight, what right does she have to voice any opinion.
Mrs. Johnson said this neighbor had come over and talked to her personally, but she
was unaware until now of the phone call.
Mr. Johnson pointed out the Notice of Public Hearing said you had to be here for the
request.
Ms. Schnabel said this person felt because she was a friend, and did not want to
jeopardize that friendship that she did not care to come.
Mrs. Johnson said she told this neighbor to come and air her feelings. She wanted to
know how one person in a neighborhood can stop something like this. If they had a
grudge, it could be used against you.
Ms. Schnabel said that was not the reason or jurisdiction of this commission to stop
you, but to make a recommendation to Council.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Johnson said if they have to wait until the October meeting, it will
cost them time and money. Mrs. Johnson asked why they were here tonight if it has
already been decided by this Council person that it should go to Council.
Mr. Moravetz pointed out this commission has to still make a recommendation on the
request.
Ms. Schnabel said she cannot say if the neighbor's reasons are valid or invalid, but
they have been asked to send it on to Council and will have to do so.
The Johnsons asked why the Council member wanted this item before Council. Was it just
because of one phone call.
Ms. Schnabel said the Council member, Cheryl Moses, did not state her "reasons.
a
1,
APPEALS COMMITTION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 13
U?ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION.CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:26 P.M.
Mr. Barna said with the curve of the street and the layout of the adjoining homes he
could not imagine where the absent objecting neighbor lived, except possibly the one
to the east. He said he could not see where a 6 or 8 foot addition would cut off your
view. He stated he cannot see the objection but there is one.
MOTION by Mr. Barna to recommend to Council approvai of the variance•request pursuant to.
Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required
35 feet to 27.2 feet, to allow an 8 foot by 20 foot addition to an existing attached
garage, so that part of the existing garage can be used for a family room addition,
Located on Lot 31, Block 4, Melody Manor 4th Addition.
Mr. Kemper said he wJuld like to discuss it more before they second it. He wanted to
know if any front yard setbacks had been given in Melody Manor.
Mr. Barna thought perhaps one or two, but was not sure. Mr. Moravetz said none that he
was aware of.
Mr. Kemper pointed out that this was a well known neighborhood of several hundred homes
and all have an apparent 35 foot setback without question.
Ms. Schnabel said she questioned.the setbacks. This particular home site sits between
Ballet and Jackson Street on Melody Drive. The houses between 73rd and Ballet on
Melody seem more irregular in the setbacks. This may be only a visual conception due
to the style of the homes.
Mr. Barna said he got a jogging effect going from a 2 -story home to a rambler.
Mr. Kemper said he did not mean to draw a conclusion and place Melody Manor on a
pedestal and not allow variances. He said this was an important decision, do we want
to start allowing variances here.
Mr. Moravetz brought out the aerial photos of this area. The area was complete when
the photos were taken.
Mr. Kemper asked the board if there was a real hardship. It already was a large.home
and if the addition was build or not,,was that a hardship.
The commission looked at the aerial photos and concurred a visual jogging affact,of
the front yards does occur, but that does not say they are not 35 feet.
Mr. Kemper said the homeowner has done a good job of maintaining the home.
Second by Mr. Kemper on the motion made by Mr. Barna to recommend to Council to approve
this variance request.
Ms. Gable said she was not firmly convinced there was a hardship. She said she had no
problem with the variance or setting a precedent allowing variances here, but with
the fact there was no hardship proven.
Ms. Schnabel said she felt the same way. She thought the addition could be added unto,
the rear without any problems. She felt the real hardship was with the objections
received from the neighbor and the request by Council people to hear this. She said
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 14
she felt very strongly about,this, by putting these people through something that
was unecessary. She did not think Council could arrive at an easier or better solution.
Mr. Kemper said they should make a list for City Council so thev can be aware of the
problems and why this commission acted as they did. The two reasons were:
1. The hardships were not well defined and these hardships may be self-
inflicted, for instance because of the pool position.
2. There have been no homes in Melody;Manor granted front yard variances
and this may set a Precedent. , Council should be aware of this and
decide if they want to start this.
Ms. Schnabel said she wanted to send to Council another item regarding this, but
would discuss it under Other Business.
Mr. Barna gave his opinion on what a hardship is Re felt it was a situation that affects
that particular request and if this request will affect the petitioner's life style.
He said in this case there could be some design change, but it could mean losing the
pool or have the addition end right at the pool edge. This was a financial and life
style hardship.
Mr. Kemper said he agreed it was a hardship on properly designing an addition, but
did not feel the City Attorney was attempting to address that, but if there was a real
need.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. KEMPER AND MR. BARNA VOTING AYE, MS. GABEL AND MS. SCHNABEL
VOTING NAY, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION A TIE.
6. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 31 FEET, SO THAT A LARGE TREE CAN
BE SAVED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING LOCATED ON LOT 30, BLOCK 8,
PLYMOUTH ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH HALF OF VACATED 48TH AVENUE N.E. AND ALL VACATED
ALLEY LYING ADJACENT TO SAID LOT 30, THE SAME BEING 4795 3RD STREET NE. (Request
by Robert Carl; 4831 31st Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417).
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:43 P.M.
Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
4795' 3rd Street 14.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RE UIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet
Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off. -street
parking without encroaching on the public right of: way and also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
Item #5 September 18, 1979
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7476 Melody Drive N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet
Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street
parking without encroaching on the public right of way and also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"We want to add on a family mom. In order to do this we need to take
8 feet out of the back of our existing garage; add on an additional 12 feet
to create a family room. The entrance to the room from the house via door
which was originally used to enter garage from house. Also we want to add
an additional 8 feet to front of garage to maintain a double size garage.
We could not accomplish a room with a direct entrance without using said
amount of garage area. Thus we are limited on the amount of footage we
can go out the back and still have a direct entrance."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The existing structure is setback 35.2 feet from the front property line.
The addition would make the setback 27.2 feet from the front property line.
The houses along this street were all proposed to be set back at the 35 foot
minimum. If the Board moves to approve this request, the staff has no
stipulations to recommend.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 56432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
September 24, 1979
At the Appeals Commission meeting of September 18, 1979 there
was discussion of a variance request for 7476 Melody Manor N.E.
At this meeting, it was stated that this request would be on the
City Council agenda for October 22, 1979. One of the reasons for this
long delay was because there is no scheduled City Council meeting for
October 8th due to the Columbus Day holiday.
It has been determined that it is in the best interest of the
petitioner to move this item forward. Therefore, the City Council
will be hearing this request for a variance at their October 1st
meeting. Anyone desiring to be heard on this item may be heard at this
time. The Appeals Commission has requested that anyone having any
objections either attend this meeting, or send a signed letter to the
City Council prior to this date.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRWOMAN
APPEALS COMMISSION
r
CITY OF FRIOLrAY, SUBJECT
MINNr=sO'rA COMMISSION APPLICA'T'ION
RFVI—= W
U rime 1/u siorr /Jumuer 1 tiev rogv Approved by Vale
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST FILE �
RETURN TO PLANNING � DUE __ ..
COMMENTS 7
W(l
ol
277
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1979 Page 4
Mayor Nee stated his reaction is that there isn't rationale to meet the
criteria of a hardship. The premise for the variance is that.there is no
other practical way to use the land and really wasn't intended for this
sort of thing.
UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman
Barnette, and Councilman Schneider voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Nee
and Councilwoman Moses voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried by a 3 to 2 vote.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this request for a variance of the front
yard setback was heard by the Appeals Commission and resulted in a tie motion
by the Commission.
Mr. Johnson, the petitioner, appeared before the Council regarding his variance
request. He stated, if they built the addition to the back of the property,
there is no feasible way to get to the back as they would have to go through
their dining room or kitchen area. They felt the proposal to build to the
front would be best as they could go out through the garage.
Councilwoman Moses stated she visited with Mrs. Johnson who showed her their
plans. She felt, from a re -sale value, you typically will find a family room
behind the garage and usually adjoining an eating area. Councilwoman Moses
stated, from her thinking, to have the family room come off the back of the
house into an eating area would make the property more valuable, rather than
having a hallway to the family room. She questioned if this possibility had
been explored.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, pointed out that variances to the ordinance are
to be granted where, because of some unique situation, as far as the property
is concerned, an unnecessary hardship would be caused on the people living
there.
Councilman Schneider asked if the family room couldn't be located in the back
of the house and, therefore, no variances would be needed.
Mr. Johnson stated the eating area in the kitchen is very small and if this
was done, they would have the traffic around the table.
Councilman Schneider felt, in this particular case, to grant the variance would
be for a convenience factor and he is not comfortable, in his own mind, that a
hardship can be justified. He stated, in the previous case, which was heard
just before this request, there is a house that is already encroaching on a lot
line and it appeared the porch being placed in another area created access problems.
Mr. Johnson stated he has an entrance to the front and didn't want to tear up the
rest of the house.
Councilwoman Moses stated she didn't want to prevent Mr. Johnson from having a
family room, but, in her own mind, she felt that something could be planned for an
alternative to build out the back of the house.
MOTION by Councilwoman Moseso denv the variance_re4uut for Mr. Johnson, 7476
%&F—d�-Drive. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Mayor Nee stated he would be uneasy granting the variance in Melody Manor and
would see nothing but a flood of requests and all kinds of encroachments.
Councilwoman Moses stated she had the same problem as this was the first re-
quest they had for a variance in Melody Manor and felt it would also set a
precedent in that area.
UP-ON
motON_A__YOICE_VDSE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee cl
dea
thion carried,unanimously.
. Id
276
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1979
Page 3
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this property presently protrudes into
the front yard and the owner wishes to screen in for a porch which will
make the front of the house a straight line.
Ms. Landis, the petitioner, appeared before the Council regarding her request.
She stated the house has a jog in front and felt it would be nice to screen
it off for a porch. She stated it is on the north side and felt this might
also give extra protection against the wind.
Mr. Russell Tenney, 528 Janesville Street, a neighboring property owner,
stated he had no objection to Ms. Landis' request.
Ms. Landis stated she spoke to the Schommer's and they had no objection as
long as she wasn't going any closer to the property line.
Mr. Larry Korzenowski, 529 Janesville Street, stated he objected to the variance
as the building is only 22 feet from the street. He stated it is eye-catching
as you go down the street. He felt it was really too close to the street and
more structure would also increase the eyesore and not prove any useful purpose.
Mr. Korzenowski felt the property is in such a state of disrepair and a porch
would be detrimental to the whole street, if it is kept up the same as the
rest of the house.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated in Mr. Korzenowski's reference to "more structure",
he pointed out there is a structure there now and the proposed structure does
not come up any further.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he felt it was a reasonable request. He stated
it is close to the street, but he envisions the closing in of that area isn't
going to encroach into the front yard or street any closer than it is now. He
pointed out there are several homes on this side of the street that are cer-
tainly less than 35 feet from the street.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he is not totally unsympathetic with Mr. Kor-
zenowski's suggestion, but didn't feel screening this in would make that much
difference and that it was a reasonable request by the petitioner.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated what the Council should address itself to
is the question of hardship and whether there is something unique about this
case. He felt one question that may be pertinent is if the screen porch could
be put on the back of the property.
Ms..Landis stated it would be a little awkward to get back there as there is
a large tree and an entrance in the back to get to the water heater and the
pipes.
Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the question of hardship is pretty much in the eye
of the beholder. He pointed out that the petitioner noted there is a large
tree located in the back of the property and the situation isn't .the same
for locating the porch in the back of the house as it is in the front of the
house.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the variance request to reduce
front yard setbacks from the required 35 feet to approximately 18 (+/-) to
allow enclosure of two sides of existing structure for a 10 x 16 foot screen
porch, as requested by Rosemary Landis, 530 Janesville Street. Seconded by
Councilman Barnette.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he felt the request was reasonable and indicated
he was not totally unsympathetic with Mr. Korzenowski, but didn't feel that
if it is extended, it gives the appearance of encroaching more on the street.
Mr. Korzenowski stated, as it stands now, it is not a pleasant structure to
look at and felt this is just going to add to it.
09 ad
0
. ..... ... i�
0
Anin
U)
N
I
R
�!
0,
V-
Ilk
7
cD OD
en t M'r-
V
Nr
V
.0
ar Or
Pw
ul
Jw
CD
to in
in
ui
r
w
w
z
%
3 N VA. 13 MIS Mm NVA
pp,
10
4 to
In
OD
TM
10
1 4 -
Ul
a, Ln
Ln ONS,
N. a ns, I;F
lqr, 141� N.M I
C.P qv� N 41 m
-wft
by,
.0.9
I-
r;po
J-334-JLS mos)qyr
C 10
K;!b•yz-10 00
—;� t, 13\
P4 1 W N,
co --bN
Ln Ln Zvi
PI
Al
019 0,9
rf 10 of ED(07, cy,
N a. * * CN
cr. tr oD 0
CD lot
oai
07 - ------ V ---
so
Al
V, zn
m �� . % r, �. IT m\ %,
'20, 't .
r 4r
10
11);t 0 El-
ul .4 rn
wk
� r I -T
qA
IA ^ o N M 111. m L Ji
as, tn�
vo
'coo
2.0
—21
cr —VI
Is
—0 C4
aw
aq
1 9
No i�
0
R
�!
0,
V-
Nr
7
cD OD
en t M'r-
V
Nr
V
rL
Jw
Jw
I
ol in
ID
%
3 N VA. 13 MIS Mm NVA
pp,
10
4 to
In
OD
TM
10
1 4 -
Ul
a, Ln
Ln ONS,
N. a ns, I;F
lqr, 141� N.M I
C.P qv� N 41 m
-wft
by,
.0.9
I-
r;po
J-334-JLS mos)qyr
C 10
K;!b•yz-10 00
—;� t, 13\
P4 1 W N,
co --bN
Ln Ln Zvi
PI
Al
019 0,9
rf 10 of ED(07, cy,
N a. * * CN
cr. tr oD 0
CD lot
oai
07 - ------ V ---
so
Al
V, zn
m �� . % r, �. IT m\ %,
'20, 't .
r 4r
10
11);t 0 El-
ul .4 rn
wk
� r I -T
qA
IA ^ o N M 111. m L Ji
as, tn�
vo
'coo
2.0
—21
cr —VI
Is
—0 C4
aw
aq
1 9