Loading...
VAR 97-06STATE OF MINNESOTA j APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS COy UNTY OF ANOKA j VARIANCE CITY OF FRIDLEY ) In the Matter of: a variance, VAR #97-06 19911AA Owner: Edward R. Ahrens III and Gail Ahrens The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 28thday of May , 1997 , on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet.to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E. 1q -30-a0- 3a-00ols cQs ft IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approved with no stipulations. See Appeals Commission meeting minutes dated May 28, 1997. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF FRIDLEY ) I, William A. Champa, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of FridlMinnesota, in. the County of Anoka on the -I�Aj day of 1937 - DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 WuA` LAZAxxj-q-ws, (A William A. Champa, CityC r �-t-I? '':�jjppp��yyy 'Da•n DDavea� f� °�F DJ ;a,4a nD iF r Variances are valid for a period of one year following appr1��b considered void if not used within that period. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28,1997 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission would consider the special use permit on June 4. This item would be considered by the City Council on June 23. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #97-06 BY EDWARD & GAIL AHRENS 198 MERCURY DRIVE N E : Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet. The petitioners are proposing to construct a 20 foot by 22 foot tandem - style addition in front of the existing garage. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Mercury Drive and Jupiter Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are most of the surrounding properties. Located to the north is the Christenson Crossing development. Located on the property is a single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage. Ms. McPherson stated staff analysis finds that the Commission typically evaluates two items when considering front yard variance requests - the impact to the line of site and the ability for off-street parking. The line of site impacts may be considered for not only the adjacent property owners but persons entering the neighborhood and how they perceive the buildings to be set on the street as part of the streetscape. With the addition, it does change the impression of the setback from the street for someone entering this particular neighborhood. In addition, the off-street parking area would be reduced from 35 feet to 15 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners submitted two alternatives. The first is a detached structure in the rear yard. The second is an addition to the east of the existing garage. A detached structure of a similar size would require a special use permit and would have some impact to landscaping in the rear yard. The second alternative would be an addition to the east of the existing structure which poses some interesting architectural challenges due to the slope of the roof. However, those could be creatively solved. Ms. McPherson stated the request is within previously granted variances; therefore staff has no recommendation. Ms. Savage asked which of the alternatives would not require a variance. LS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28 1997 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated the second alternative may require a variance. It is very close on the comer in terms of the setback. Mr. Hickok stated the addition could be 20 feet wide and leave a 25 foot side yard between the property line to the east and the garage. Ms. Savage stated staff indicated this request is within previously granted requests. She can remember requests for enlarging garages. They are often for additional storage for vehicles, lawn equipment, etc. The Appeals Commission has denied a number of them. Ms. McPherson stated the history has been mixed on these types of requests. Oftentimes it may be a request for a larger garage. It is not necessarily a setback issue. She believed that last summer the City did grant a variance to within 10 feet on 5th Street for a garage as opposed to requiring a 25 -foot setback for a side comer request. Some have been as close as 10 feet to the property line. Dr. Vos stated staff mentioned the 15 feet versus the 35 feet. He requested to see on the site plan where that setback would be. He asked if the 15 feet was measured from the right-of-way. Ms. McPherson stated the 15 feet is from the property line. There is approximately a 15 - foot boulevard from the right-of-way line to the curb line. Dr. Vos stated there is then actually about 30 feet of driveway. Ms. McPherson stated that was correct, from the edge of the proposed addition to the curb line would be roughly 30 feet. Dr. Vos asked if there was a reconstruction of that comer in 1996. He asked to see that on the aerial map. - Ms. McPherson stated that change is not on the aerial map. She attempted to recreate that change on one of the drawings. Most of the reconstruction was done east of the driveway. Ms. McPherson stated the completed garage is 8 square feet larger than the first floor area of the house. Staff is asking the petitioner to reduce the size of the garage by 8 square feet to equal the area of the first floor of the house. Ms. Ahrens stated the agenda lists the lot as #6 and they are Lot #8. Second, she also noticed that the dimensions of the house that they provided does not match if you add the front dimensions and add the rear dimensions. Perhaps a portion of the dimension_ was shaved off in the photocopying process. She was not quite sure how that happened. Ms. Ahrens stated they did have an architect come out. They walked through the yard and talked about various scenarios. They are looking for two garage stalls. If they were to add that to the east side of the existing garage, they would have four stalls across the APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28,1997 PAGE 8 front. The architect suggested that, with the current roof line, they would have to go with a shed -type roof which would be at a right angle to the current roof line. The same is true of a gable which would also have to be at a right angle. To add two stalls across the front, they would have to take the trusses off and rework the roof line. The architect was not in favor of that as far as the shed roof line. He said it would look added on and would not enhance the look of the house. Ms. Ahrens stated they thought that going with their proposal which is adding to the front would allow them to make improvements to the front of the house including putting in a sidewalk, new landscaping and a new driveway. There is a difference in the length of the finished driveway. They measured on their driveway the area where the proposed garage would be and measured from there to the shortest side of the driveway. They still have 44.5 feet from the extension to the shortest or east side of the driveway. She was not sure why that was different. Ms. McPherson stated this may be due to the fact that when she was working from drawings, she assumed that the street was centered in the right-of-way. The street could be shifted to the north which could account for the difference in directions. Her measurements are based on a scaled drawing. Ms. Ahrens stated they went out and found the survey stake and measured it with a tape measure. On the west side of the driveway because of the new street configuration, she believes that part of the driveway would be longer. The actual reconfiguration of the street did not leave a square intersection. As they look from their den to the other side of the garage, they probably have a 106 foot expanse to the curb line. The neighbor to the west is at a 45 -degree angle, and his house is set forward of theirs but facing truer north. They are unique in that way. This would probably make them look more even with the houses that are running along Satellite Lane. They are built more at an angle on the comer. There are a number of intersections to the east of their lot and those houses are either set forward or across the street are at an angle. Across the street on Mercury Drive, the driveway goes off to the side of the house. In looking at the front of his house, she would estimate the setback of the front yard to be 40 feet. When compared to the 80 feet on the west side of their front yard, you get a feel for just how much front yard they have. Unfortunately, they cannot put a driveway there but, as far as them looking close to the street, she did not think that was anything to be worried about. Ms. Ahrens stated they measured about a 30 -foot easement going all the way around the comer so that figures into that 44.5 feet stretch of driveway that they would end up with. As far as the ability for off-street parking, as they measured, they probably come up a little shy on that by about 1 foot or so. They were wondering, because they do come up with a 44.5 foot driveway, if the City thought they would do anything more with that easement to require them to give up the additional footage for the additional garage. Ms. Ahrens stated the other two alternatives have a number of disadvantages. They would have to tear down mature trees. They would have to put in additional driveway which will increase the costs. She did not know that this would be aesthetically pleasing. That is why they think this proposal makes the best sense. It would allow them to APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28,1997 PAGER upgrade rather than have to change landscaping. They would have to put in an extra driveway if they were to put a detached garage in the back. That would not be good for the neighbors. Ms. Savage asked if they had received input from the neighbors. Ms. Ahrens stated a neighbor was at the meeting. The other neighbors have had no comments. Ms. McPherson stated staff had received no calls regarding this request. Ms. Savage stated the petitioner had indicated in the hardship statement the problem with the alternatives. She asked why the petitioners needed the addition. Ms. Ahrens stated they now have one boat and three vehicles. There are now two drivers in the family but they have a son who will be driving in about two years. They have a fairly nice car that they would like to save for him and not have to sell for lack of space and then find something else for him. Regardless, they have a boat that is going to need storage. They would rather have it inside and under cover rather than sitting out in their yard or having to store it away every winter. Because of being on a comer lot, the most logical place to store the boat would be on the comer side of their garage. Everyone coming down Mercury can see it sitting there. Dr. Vos stated he looked at the site. If the paint is where he thought, there are a couple of trees that will have to come down on either side of the driveway. Mr. Ahrens stated he thought the two trees by the driveway could stay if they can build the proposed garage. It will be close but he thought trimming them would work. Ms. Ahrens stated the tree on the west side has limited growth potential. It died back during winter a few years ago. She did not know how it will grow over the years. It will probably tend to grow out. They may end up having to get rid of it anyway. Dr. Vos asked for their response to having to shave off 8 square feet. Ms. Ahrens stated that came as a surprise to them. They always thought their house was of certain dimensions and did not check that. When staff said we were 8 feet shy, she did not know how they missed that. That is why she is still looking over this and wondering why it does not jive. She happened to notice that on the copy she is working from the front dimensions do not match the back dimensions. - Ms. McPherson stated part of the garage actually jogs in which may explain why the front wall is shorter than the rear wall. Ms. Ahrens stated she totaled the front wall plus the garage and totaled the back wall plus garage and those totals do not match. J4 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28,1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Kuechle stated that is an issue the petitioner will have to figure out with staff. Ms. Ahrens stated that if it does tum out they are indeed short, they are willing to change the dimensions of the garage to allow for the 8 square feet or whatever increment that would be. Mr. Christensen stated he has discussed with the petitioner his situation with their vehicles and boat over the past month. He is in the construction business. Aesthetically looking at their piece of property, his feeling is that if they put the garage off to the side of the existing garage the roof lines would not look proper for the neighborhood. It would look like it was added on. He is not crazy about a detached garage in the back yard. He thought that would be an eyesore. Their children play back there. He thought the best bet was to come out the front. There is plenty of room for four cars to park in the driveway plus they would have all their vehicles inside under cover. He thought that would be the best for the neighborhood. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:16 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he is the neighbor to the east. In looking over the request, he would recommend approval because to him it is the method that makes the most sense from his perspective looking out of his house windows to the west. A garage in the back yard would have more impact. Secondly, the situation is different than most. In the reconfiguration of the street last fall, they added a lot of boulevard to the lot so it makes the house look set way back. If you look at the aerial photo, their house is set not in line with the houses on Satellite Lane, but is around the curve of the street and is set back from the ones on Satellite Lane. As far as he can tell even with the garage extending to the front, they would still be even or back from the other houses. He would recommend approval of the request Ms. Savage stated she thought this was the best alternative of the proposals. She looked at it, and it does appears that it would not have an adverse impact. Her concern is the precedent for allowing the increase in garage size. On her street, a lot of people who have boats have to put them outside. Many people in the City would certainly like to have a larger garage whether it be for boats, additional vehicles, or whatever. The Commission may have had some other requests where it is a different issue such as the size of the addition by comparison to the size of the house. That is the only reservation she has.. She would go along with approval. Staff did recommend a reduction in the square footage of the garage to match the size of the dwelling area. Mr. Kuechle stated that is something the petitioner will have to work out with staff. Ms. McPherson stated this is something the petitioner must do in order to get a building permit unless they wish to apply for another variance. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28, 1997 PAGE 11 Dr. Vos stated he thought they are fortunate to have that much room to guild on a garage. He would recommend approval. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-06, by Edward and Gail Ahrens, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 28, 1997, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M. Res ectfully submitted, avonn Cooper Ca Recording Secretary A S i RACT Receipt #3(an29 L19y Dale/Timer /ll :do Doc. Order—� of ✓ 6yr Recorda6ilily: Filing Fees: I �. SO Delgsr Pins: ❑ Carlilied Copy DOCUMENT No. 1281346.0 ABSTRACT C Tax Liens1Raleases ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA ❑ Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE ❑ Transfer Now FORRECORDON JUN 11 97 ❑ Desc. AT 5. 00 PM AND WAS DULY RECORDED. • ❑ Division ❑ GAC FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19.50 PAID. Def. ❑ Slalus ❑ Spec. i RECEIPT No. 97039329 EDWARD M. TRESKA ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES BY DKD DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRA TOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1-.001 B I TUM I NOUS - I I G M 18" SEE SHEET CII ATCH EXISTIN R=2 845.79 MATCH EXISTING s;/ 00 843.64 ± .6 tl 2 45.33 41.20 R--25 5 I NS Li SOD 844.2 R=25' NSTALL'/4 ,,CON RETff---- 41.54 `,C SURMPUNTABLE"RB moi- M 84 00, \ / 1/ \ �`t 841.71- 841.9 REMOVE SU OUNT, o INSTALL BITUM OU, 51. R B INSTALL 4" CONCRETE SURMOUNTABLE CURB INSTALL SOD SVI REMOVE & LL 4" CONCRETE SURMOUNTABLE C FES 4 MATCH EXISTIN . ......... ,1 - Y to Ilk3 T t: �� 1 10 r J 71 4o' CURY> RI\ G7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1281 APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Ed and Gail Ahrens 198 Mercury Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ahrens: June 5, 1997 On May 28, 1997, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #97-06, by Edward and Gail Ahrens, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E You have one year from the date of the Appeals Commission action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3593. Sincerely, Michele McPherson Planning Assistant MM:Is Please review the above, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley Planning Department by June 16, 1997.;0 Concur with action taken. PEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 28,1997 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING A4CRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLYMs. McPherson stated the Planning Co d consider the special use permit on June 4. This item would be conside douncil on June 23. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UE T VAR 97- 6 BY EDWARD & GAIL AHRENS 1 8 MERCURY DRIVE N E : Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet. The petitioners are proposing to construct a 20 foot by 22 foot tandem - ,style addition in front of the existing garage. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Mercury Drive and Jupiter Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are most of the surrounding properties. Located to the north is the Christenson Crossing development. Located on the property is a single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage. Ms. McPherson stated staff analysis finds that the Commission typically evaluates two items when considering front yard variance requests - the impact to the line of site and the ability for off-street parking. The line of site impacts may be considered for not only the adjacent property owners but persons entering the neighborhood and how they perceive the buildings to be set on the street as part of the streetscape. With the addition, it does change the impression of the setback from the street for someone entering this particular neighborhood. In addition, the off-street parking area would be reduced from 35 feet to 15 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners submitted two alternatives. The first is a detached structure in the rear yard. The second is an addition to the east of the existing garage. A detached structure of a similar size would require a special use permit and would have some impact to landscaping in the rear yard. The second alternative would be an addition to the east of the existing structure which poses some interesting architectural challenges due to the slope of the roof. However, those could be creatively solved. Ms. McPherson stated the request is within previously granted variances; therefore staff has no recommendation. Ms. Savage asked which of the alternatives would not require a variance. APPEAL COM ISSION MEETING MAY 28 1997 1 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated the second alternative may require a variance. It is very close on the comer in terms of the setback. Mr. Hickok stated the addition could be 20 feet wide and leave a 25 foot side yard between the property line to the east and the garage. Ms. Savage stated staff indicated this request is within previously granted requests. She can remember requests for enlarging garages. They are often for additional storage for vehicles, lawn equipment, etc. The Appeals Commission has denied a number of them. Ms. McPherson stated the history has been mixed on these types of Oftentimes it may be a request for a larger garage. It is not necessarily a setback issue. She believed that last summer the City did grant a variance to within 10 feet on 5th Street for a garage as opposed to requiring a 25 -foot setback for a side comer request. Some have been as close as 10 feet to the property line. Dr. Vos stated staff mentioned the 15 feet versus the 35 feet. He requested to see on the site plan where that setback would be. He asked if the 15 feet was measured from the right-of-way. Ms. McPherson stated the 15 feet is from the property line. There is approximately a 15 - foot boulevard from the right-of-way line to the curb line. Dr. Vos stated there is then actually about 30 feet of driveway. Ms. McPherson stated that was correct, from the edge of the proposed addition to the curb line would be roughly 30 feet. Dr. Vos asked if there was a reconstruction of that comer in 1996. He asked to see that on the aerial map. Ms. McPherson stated that change is not on the aerial map. She attempted to recreate that change on one of the drawings. Most of the reconstruction was done east of the driveway. Ms. McPherson stated the completed garage is 8 square feet larger than the first floor area of the house. Staff is asking the petitioner to reduce the size of the garage by 8 square feet to equal the area of the first floor of the house. Ms. Ahrens stated the agenda lists the lot as #f6 and they are Lot #8. Second, she also noticed that the dimensions of the house that they provided does not match if you add the front dimensions and add the rear dimensions. Perhaps a portion of the dimension was shaved off in the photocopying process. She was not quite sure how that happened. Ms. Ahrens stated they did have an architect come out. They walked through the yard and talked about various scenarios. They are looking for two garage stalls. If they were to add that to the east side of the existing garage, they would have four stalls across the APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28, 1997 PAGE 8 front. The architect suggested that, with the current roof line, they would have to go with a shed -type roof which would be at a right angle to the current roof line. The same is true of a gable which would also have to be at a right angle. To add two stalls across the front, they would have to take the trusses off and rework the roof line. The architect was not in favor of that as far as the shed roof line. He said it would look added on and would not enhance the look of the house. Ms. Ahrens stated they thought that going with their proposal which is adding to the front would allow them to make improvements to the front of the house including putting in a sidewalk, new landscaping and a new driveway. There is a difference in the length of the finished driveway. They measured on their driveway the area where the proposed garage would be and measured from there to the shortest side of the driveway. They still have 44.5 feet from the extension to the shortest or east side of the driveway. She was not sure why that was different. Ms. McPherson stated this may be due to the fact that when she was working from drawings, she assumed that the street was centered in the right-of-way. The street could be shifted to the north which could account for the difference in directions. Her measurements are based on a scaled drawing. Ms. Ahrens stated they went out and found the survey stake and measured it with a tape measure. On the west side of the driveway because of the new street configuration, she believes that part of the driveway would be longer. The actual reconfiguration of the street did not leave a square intersection. As they look from their den to the other side of the garage, they probably have a 106 foot expanse to the curb line. The neighbor to the west is at a 45 -degree angle, and his house is set forward of theirs but facing truer north. They are unique in that way. This would probably make them look more even with the houses that are running along Satellite Lane. They are built more at an angle on the comer. There are a number of intersections to the east of their lot and those houses are either set forward or across the street are at an angle. Across the street on Mercury Drive, the driveway goes off to the side of the house. In looking at the front of his house, she would estimate the setback of the front yard to be 40 feet. When compared to the 80 feet on the west side of their front yard, you get a feel for just how much front yard they have. Unfortunately, they cannot put a driveway there but, as far as them looking close to the street, she did not think that was anything to be worried about. Ms. Ahrens stated they measured about a 30 -foot easement going all the way around the comer so that figures into that 44.5 feet stretch of driveway that they would end up with. As far as the ability for off-street parking, as they measured, they probably come up a little shy on that by about 1 foot or so. They were wondering, because they do come up with a 44.5 foot driveway, if the City thought they would do anything more with that easement to require them to give up the additional footage for the additional garage. Ms. Ahrens stated the other two alternatives have a number of disadvantages. They would have to tear down mature trees. They would have to put in additional driveway which will increase the costs. She did not know that this would be aesthetically pleasing. That is why they think this proposal makes the best sense. It would allow them to ALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28, 1997 PAGE 9 upgrade rather than have to change landscaping. They would have to put in an extra driveway if they were to put a detached garage in the back. That would not be good for the neighbors. Ms. Savage asked if they had received input from the neighbors. Ms. Ahrens stated a neighbor was at the meeting. The other neighbors have had no comments. Ms. McPherson stated staff had received no calls regarding this request. Ms. Savage stated the petitioner had indicated in the hardship statement the problem with the alternatives. She asked why the petitioners needed the addition. Ms. Ahrens stated they now have one boat and three vehicles. There are now two drivers in the family but they have a son who will be driving in about two years. They have a fairly nice car that they would like to save for him and not have to sell for lack of space and then find something else for him. Regardless, they have a boat that is going to' need storage. They would rather have it inside and under cover rather than sitting out in their yard or having to store it away every winter. Because of being on a comer lot, the most logical place to store the boat would be on the comer side of their garage. Everyone coming down Mercury can see it sitting there. Dr. Vos stated he looked at the site. If the paint is where he thought, there are a couple of trees that will have to come down on either side of the driveway. Mr. Ahrens stated he thought the two trees by the driveway could stay if they can build the proposed garage. It will be close but he thought trimming them would work. Ms. Ahrens stated the tree on the west side. has limited growth potential. It died back during winter a few years ago. She did not know how it will grow over the years. It will probably tend to grow out. They may end up having to get rid of it anyway. Dr. Vos asked for their response to having to shave off 8 square feet. Ms. Ahrens stated that came as a surprise to them. They always thought their house was of certain dimensions and did not check that. When staff said we were 8 feet shy, she did not know how they missed that. That is why she is still looking over this and wondering why it does not jive. She happened to notice that on the copy she is working from the front dimensions do not match the back dimensions. Ms. McPherson stated part of the garage actually jogs in which may explain why the front wall is shorter than the rear wall. Ms. Ahrens stated she totaled the front wall plus the garage and totaled the back wall plus garage and those totals do not match. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 28, 1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Kuechle stated that is an issue the petitioner will have to figure out with staff. Ms. Ahrens stated that if it does tum out they are indeed short, they are willing to change the dimensions of the garage to allow for the 8 square feet or whatever increment that would be. Mr. Christensen stated he has discussed with the petitioner his situation with their vehicles and boat over the past month. He is in the construction business. Aesthetically looking at their piece of property, his feeling is that if they put the garage off to the side of the existing garage the roof lines would not look proper for the neighborhood. It would look like it was added on. He is not crazy about a detached garage in the back yard. He thought that would be an eyesore. Their children play back there. He thought the best bet was to come out the front. There is plenty of room for four cars to park in the driveway plus they would have all their vehicles inside under cover. He thought that would be the best for the neighborhood. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:16 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he is the neighbor to the east. In looking over the request, he would recommend approval because to him it is the method that makes the most sense from his perspective looking out of his house windows to the west. A garage in the back yard would have more impact. Secondly, the situation is different than most. In the reconfiguration of the street last fall, they added a lot of boulevard to the lot so it makes the house look set way back. If you look at the aerial photo, their house is set not in line with the houses on Satellite Lane, but is around the curve of the street and is set back from the ones on Satellite Lane. As far as he can tell even with the garage extending to the front, they would still be even or back from the other houses. He would recommend approval of the request. Ms. Savage stated she thought this was the best alternative of the proposals. She looked at it, and it does appears that it would not have an adverse impact. Her concern is the precedent for allowing the increase in garage size. On her street, a lot of people who have boats have to put them outside. Many people in the City would certainly like to have a larger garage whether it be for boats, additional vehicles, or whatever. The Commission may have had some other requests where it is a different issue such as the size of the addition by comparison to the size of the house. That is the only reservation she has. She would go along with approval. Staff did recommend a reduction in the square footage of the garage to match the size of the dwelling area. Mr. Kuechle stated that is something the petitioner will have to work out with staff. Ms. McPherson stated this is something the petitioner must do in order to get a building permit unless they wish to apply for another variance. PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 28 1997 PAGE Dr. Vos stated he thought they are fortunate to have that much room to build on a garage. He would recommend approval. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-06, by Edward and Gail Ahrens, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of a garage addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 198 Mercury Drive N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 28,1997, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M. 7Res ectfully submitted, i �� C44�.�. avonn Cooper lctv Recording Secretary CIl OF FRIDLEY PROJECT b%JMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioners, Edward and Gail Ahrens, have requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet. If approved, this variance would allow construction of a 20 foot by 22 foot addition to their existing attached garage. The addition would create a "tandem" style garage (22 feet by 43 feet, 946 square feet). The purpose of the garage addition is to provide vehicle storage. This addition creates an accessory structure whose dimension exceeds the first floor house dimension by 8 square feet. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a front yard depth 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. When reviewing front yard variance requests, it has been the Commission's typical practice to determine the impact on adjacent properties and to determine the impact of parking off the public right-of-way. This request does impact some surrounding properties' line of sight into the front yard. The request also reduces visibility (for southbound motorists) through the side yard area toward the area where Mercury Drive and Jupiter Road converge. Finally, this proposed addition does reduce the petitioner's ability to park in the driveway without being in the public right-of-way. The petitioners submitted two alternatives to this request. Each alternative creates a different impact on the subject and adjacent properties, landscape and hard surface impacts. The request, however, is within previously granted requests. RECOMMENDATION As the request is within previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation regarding this variance request. Project Summary VAR #97-06, 198 Mercury Drive Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: A variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet Location of Property: 198 Mercury Drive Legal Description of Property: Lot 8, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3 Size: Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation: Typical suburban, sod and trees Existing Zoning/Platting: R-1, Single Family; Sylvan Hills Plat 3 Availability of Municipal Utilities: Connected Vehicular Access: Mercury Drive Pedestrian Access: N/A Engineering Issues: N/A Comprehensive Planning Issues: The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this location. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken Project Summary VAR #97-06,198 Mercury Drive Page 3 WEST: Zoning: SOUTH: Zoning: EAST: Zoning: NORTH: Zoning: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST ADJACENT SITES: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Residential R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Residential R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Residential S-2, Redevelopment Land Use: Townhome Residential The petitioners, Edward and Gail Ahrens, have requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet. If approved, this variance would allow construction of a 20 foot by 22 foot addition to their existing attached garage. The addition would create a "tandem" style garage (22 feet by 43 feet, 946 square feet). The purpose of the garage addition is to provide vehicle storage. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject property is located at the intersection of Mercury and Jupiter Drives. Located on the property is a split level, single family dwelling unit of 938 square feet. The attached garage measures 22 feet by 23 feet. In 1996, as part of the Christenson Crossing development, the intersection of Mercury and Jupiter Drives was reconfigured in order to improve drainage at this intersection. The reconstruction of the intersection increased the amount of boulevard area in front of the subject property. ANALYSIS Code Section Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a front yard depth of not less than 35 feet. Project Summary VAR #97-06, 198 Mercury Drive Page 4 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 and safety consideration to reduce the building `line of sight" encroachment into the front yard. The Commission typically evaluates the impact to adjacent properties' line of site and ability for off-street parking. In this area, there is some line of site impact. If approved, the addition would also eliminate the ability to park outside the public right-of-way. The petitioner submitted two alternatives to the variance request. The first alternative proposed by the petitioners places a detached garage in the rear yard. This alternative would require the removal of existing trees and landscaping and may create a compound feel with the variety of structures on the site. A special use permit would also be required for construction of a detached accessory structure if its size exceeds 240 square feet. The second alternative proposed by the petitioner expands the garage to the east toward Jupiter Drive. This alternative would require a smaller variance. A driveway addition would be needed, thereby increasing the amount of hard surface on the property. The petitioners' proposal utilizes the existing hard surface as part of the proposed garage addition and maintains a compact footprint on the site and its roofline is architecturally compatible with the dwelling. Code Section 205.07.01.B.(4) states that a "private garage is the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a .maximum of 1,000 square feet." Regardless of the Commission's setback recommendation, staff recommends that the petitioner reduce the square foot dimension of the garage so that it does not exceed the dimension of the first floor living area of the dwelling unit. The request as proposed is within previously granted requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION As the request is within previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation regarding this variance request. Edward R. & Gail Ahrens 198 Mercury Drive Fridley 571-5807 Re: Garage addition PROPOSED STRUCTURE The proposed building will be a 2 -car garage, approximately 22 feet wide by 20 feet deep. It will be added to the front of the existing garage and finished with like materials — i.e., matching cedar siding and matching roof shingles. The roof line will be a simple gable that matches the roof line on the east. The garage will be used for vehicle storage. Since the City just reconfigured the Satellite/Mercury/Jupiter comers in 1996, the proposed structure will still leave a 40 foot driveway to the curb. May 1997 Edward R. & Gail Ahrens 198 Mercury Drive Fridley 571-5807 Re: Garage addition HARDSHIP STATEMENT We consulted an architect for ideas and looked at 3 alternatives for a garage: 1. A detached 2 -car garage in the back yard. 2. An attached 2 -car garage on the east side of the existing garage. 3. An attached 2 -car garage on the front of the existing garage. Alternative #1 If a garage were to be built in the back yard, extensive rework of the landscaping would be required, including the removal of several trees and several bushes. Also, due to the limited back -yard area, a garage in this location would look crammed between our home and the neighbor's garage. Another complication is that the yard slopes toward the northeast in this location. Alternative #2 Adding a garage to the side of the existing garage might not be architecturally pleasing; the end of the slope of the existing roof will not accommodate a simple addition: any new roof would need to be gabled at a right angle to the existing home. This configuration would require extensive reworking of the existing structure — including the removal and replacement of the garage trusses. With this alternative, we would still need a variance for the front (a couple feet). In additional, extensive re -landscaping would be required, including the removal of 2 trees. The width of driveway would need to be 40 feet at the point it meets the garage doors. We would need a 30 foot stretch of straight driveway in front of the end stall (on the east end) for backing up our boat; we would use the end stall because it is out of the way of normal interior garage traffic. Alternative #3 Adding a garage to the front of the existing one would allow us to use our present driveway, with no expansion necessary. The roof line would be matched, making it architecturally pleasing. This would not alter the character of the neighborhood; in fact, this addition would make our home look somewhat similar to the Christenson Crossing homes being built across the street. Building out from the back of the existing garage is not an option. At present, a large, multilevel deck exists behind it; the deck is accessed by sliding glass doors located on the east- southeast side of the house. May 1997 Surveyor's Certificate COMSTOCK & DAVIS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 1446 County Road J, Mpls., Minn. 55432, 784-9346 Howie Location Fo-,c:. Enco Bu,i,Zdena, 3231 Centh t Ave. N.F., Mi.nneapo4. A, Minn. 55418 EX c5-r'�N a / J� O /VdN. LEGAL DESCRIPTI04: Lot 8, B.Zock 1, Sylvan Hitt Pt_at 3, City o6 Fni.d.Zey, Minn. �l OXZZ41114 . l7ietd�— SCALE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan. or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6787 1-28-74 3360 Reg. No. Date Job No. r, CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 65432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: POW MWdRV OR N6,FRIDLEY Property Identification Number. 30• 32. eo Legal Description: Lot 8 Block / Tract/Addition n 14111s Pled& Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: Qc re- Reason for Variance: Wan t tar reJgc e, -ftu %_t:b29 fro m SS) +0 15 ju cud a zge actra4e , `%o - --C fron-C c� our pneSen-1- cra crag Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes _ No ✓ if Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? * -- Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) -(Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: IM W&P-a 9 o -FSC 4- Ga1 I A h rep-1 ADDRESS: I- e r c"n F Fr' C( DAYTIME PHONE: 7541- 1 f q SIGNATUREIDIATE'ii� A. /W^. /y.AIN.V N/W VtiNN.V.VIrIVNMIV.V.1r/VN•VArNA/ PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: �J tootPA_• t Gez i i A(ire DL ADDRESS: MS Mer<_LAr, t- F i I DAYTIME PHONE: I -9 fj SIGNATURE/DANE: Section of City Code: a ®� a ©7• ! FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, orsigns: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: Receipt #: A4 Received By: Application Number VA,-99-o& Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: 50 Y%4 City of Fridley Land Use Application Process 1 60 Day Agency Action Law Application Date Planning Commission Meeting City Council Decision 60 Day Window Starts Recommendation to Council Approval or Denial I 1 :1 21-40 Days 1 50-60 Days I, iApproved, A�cfionaken Letter I Application Complete ; 10 Day Notice Submit Complete Public Hearings: Application and Variance Materials Vacations Lot Splits Plats Rezonings Zoning Amendments Wetland Replacements Comprehensive Plan Special Use Permits Tabled, 60 More Days I Denied I Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Property owners within 350 feet of 198 Mercury Drive N.E. CASE NUMBER: VAR #97-06 APPLICANT. Gail and Edward Ahrens PURPOSE: To allow the construction of a garage addition LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 198 Mercury Drive N.E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 3 DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, May 28, 1997, 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OF HEARING: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMMODATIONS: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than May 21, 1997. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: May 16, 1997 VAR #97-06 MAELING LIST MAILED 5/16.97 198 MERCURY DRIVE NE EDWARD & GAIL AHRENS EDWARD & GAIL AHRENS 198 MERCURY DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NICK DENNIS JR OR RESIDENT 174 SATELLITE LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 EDWARD WETTERBERG OR RESIDENT 175 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 RUBEN DIAZ OR RESIDENT 160 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DONALD & SUSAN SZTUK OR RESIDENT 6260 JUPITER RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ROBERT COOK JR OR RESIDENT 231 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 DAVID & MARGARET SCHLEE OR RESIDENT 222 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 JAMES & BETH SAVRE OR RESIDENT 144 SATELLITE LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 THOMAS CHRISTENSEN OR RESIDENT 190 SATELLITE LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MATT & SUE FIELD OR RESIDENT 161 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GREGORY & CAROL SMITH OR RESIDENT 180 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY COVENANT CHURCH 6390 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GREG CARLSON OR RESIDENT 241 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 BRUCE FALINK OR RESIDENT 212 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURTIS & ROSINA HAUGE OR RESIDENT 160 SATELLITE LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DOUGLAS & SARAH MILLER OR RESIDENT 181 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WILLIAM ZURBEY OR RESIDENT 145 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVEN RATHKE OR RESIDENT 6270 JUPITER RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JAMES & JOHN KRVIBER OR RESIDENT 221 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 PHILIP & CARLEEN HOFSTAD OR RESIDENT 234 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 RODNEY HOGETVEDT OR RESIDENT 201 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DAVID ZAHNER RAYMOND SCHUELLER STEVEN & SUNDEM MALLAK OR RESIDENT OR RESIDENT OR RESIDENT 211 SYLVAN LANE 221 SYLVAN LANE 231 SYLVAN LANE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 MAILING LIST LARRY KUECHLE CURRENT RESIDENT VAR #97-06 - PAGE 2 202 MERCURY DR '124 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 PJRRENT RESIDENT ✓126 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 132 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 138 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT ✓144 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT e/150 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 156 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 ✓ I/q4:!A-Lrr ,CURRENT RESIDENT 128 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 134 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 140 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT A46 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 152 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER CURRENT RESIDENT ®! 130 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 136 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT ✓ 142 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 148 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 154 CHRISTENSON CT FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRANCIS JOB OR RESIDENT 201 MERCURY DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST The following shall be the minimum submission requirements to the Appeals Commission. Applications will not be accepted if the following is not submitted: RESIDENTIAL: ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS/DATE Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are completed, and both fee ✓, ✓��� owner and petitioner have signed) Scaled site plan of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed structures, lot and block number, , adjacent street names, and buildings on adjacent lots within 10 feet. of the common lot lines. Elevation of building and description of materials. Narrative of proposed building. ✓ ✓ q COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL: ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are completed, and both fee owner and petitioner have signed) Scaled site plan of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed structures, lot and block number, adjacent street names, and buildings on adjacent lots within 10 feet of the common lot lines. Elevation of building and description of materials. Landscape plan for all projects requiring a parking lot expansion of four (4) or mores aces. Grading and drainage plan. Erosion control plan. Calculations for stormwater runoff: VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST, PAGE 2 ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS a. undeveloped condition b. existing condition c. proposed condition Calculations for excavation and/or fill Utility Map: (If item is nonexistent, note on plan) Water: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services c. proposed services d. hydrants e. valves f. fire services Sewer: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services c. proposed services d. manholes and lampholes e. elevations (inverts and top of castings) Storm: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services c. proposed services d. manholes and lampholes e. elevations (inverts and top of castings f. existing catch basins g. proposed catch basins SIGNS: ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS/DATE Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are completed, and both fee owner and petitioner have signed) -Drawing of proposed sign. Scaled site plan showing location of si n, or building elevation if wall sign. Written response to Section 214.21.02 of the Sign Code. LAND USE APPLICATION FILE CHECKLIST Date Created: 99 File Number: Summary of Request: ,- Vavt rz.• .rvcl- 4 VzkrX--{,,�-- Date Submitted: a Application Deadline: 2 9 10 Day Completion Notice: % (Official Receiving Date) 60 Day Action Date: \!d 9% understand that while my application was submitted for (applicant's name) review on , the application deadline is: , and the 60 day action window will nof begin.until Ueeceivet a letter stating that my application is complete. I also understand that the City may, at any time during the 60 day action window, in writing, notify me. that the process will be extended an additional 60 days. (signed) (witnessed by receiver) Application Found Complete ✓ yes no Application Completion Notices Mailed: 5'k /1 I Scheduled Planning Commission: Scheduled Appeals Commission: Scheduled City Council: 9 FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 May 5, 1997 Gail Ahrens 198 Mercury Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 M Dear Ms. Ahrens: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. We received an application for a variance request to reduce the front yard setback on May 2, 1997. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete and that the City of Fridley will be processing your application in accordance with Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code. Your application schedule is as follows: Appeals Commission May 28, 1997 City Council approval (if needed) June 9, 1997 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 572-3593. Sincerely, Michele McPherson McPherson Planning Assistant MM:Is C-97-58