Loading...
LS 84-05CITY OF FAIOLEY, SUBJECT VARIANCES 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE- NB. VVV FRIOLEY, MN. 88432 1612f 571-3450 ADDRESS `'� �% 50.� r�-� DATE APPEALS C014MISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED _ DATE NO. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: REQUIRED: rYES CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE N0. STIPULATIONS: Cl- . .......... NAME FEE 40 "_ RECEIPT No. a LOT 0 BLOC_ K NO. TRACT OR ADDITION JU LEGAL DESCRIPTION: i y__ ___ �� • ��''' VARIANCE•REQUEST(S): (Attach plat or survey of propert showing building, variances, �r tc. , where appl i 1 ) ` ; t 0 A,a.lot Q Section(s) of the City Coder List specific hardship(s) which requires the variance(s): n SIGNATOR DATE �?-1 �p'� ___ ADDRESS S . /U� TELEPHONE NO -7 VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY Board members notified of meeting by J1, a 8 List rrembers. date notified. and •Yes" or "No" for plans to Utend hearing. Plan Patricia Gabel frame Date ' To Attend James•Plemel Dnna1d•-Ret2n1d . .dean (iPrMI I I _ Person moking appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom _ • _ 'cl�l� Name, I�c�. •IY11� �� Date Phone or Mail Notified n�j rn C, [J-- ggI - T-0 tofih Rue - W) Lewis Wells, -6553 Oakley Dr,.N,E, M/M William Dole 6551 Oakley Dr, N,E. M/M Harold Marchand. 1001 MississiDDi St. N.E. I M/M Hilary Mayers, 969MMississippi Sty N,E M/M John Kurak, 6547 Oakley Dr, N,E. M/M Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr, N,E, M/M Jeffrey Gustafson, 6558 Oakley Dr, N.E. M/M Frank Sinna, 6550 Oakley Dr, N,E, 7----7- — I"I/M Konala 13 loom, DD'Fc UdKley UT', IV,G, ( I M/M James Tauer, 6534 Oakley Dr, N.E. M/M Walter Miller, 945 Mississippi St. N,E. Jeffrey, Timothy and Robert Gustafson, 935 Miss, . M/M Wayne Brodal, 931 Mississippi St. N,E. M/M Ronald Miller, 953 Mississippi St, N,E® CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING is hereby given that the :onduct a Public Hearing in s Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on wing matter: TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 June 1, 1984 Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Tuesday, June 12, 1984- in regard to the Consideration of a request for variances pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 27.8 ft. to 21 ft., and reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 25 ft. and to allow a detached accessory building to be in the front yard. No structures are being changed on this property, the variances are required because of a lot split request, which changes the front and rear property lines on part of Lot 8 H, Auditor's Subdivision No. 21, the same being 953 Mississippi Street N.E. (6530 Oakley if lot.spl:it is approved. at June 4, 1984 Planning Commission meeting). Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. PATRICIA GABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there 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. FA CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 June 1, 1984 ice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley 1 conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University nue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 198,4 in regard to the lowing matter: Consideration of a request for variances pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 27.8 ft. to 21 ft., and reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 25 ft. and to allow a detached accessory building to be in the front yard. No structures are being changed on this property, the variances are required because of a lot split request, which changes the front and rear property lines on part of Lot 8 H, Auditor's Subdivision No. 21, the same being 953 Mississippi Street N.E. (6530 Oakley if lot.split is approved, at June 4, 1984 Planning Commission meeting). Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. PATRICIA GABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there 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. VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY Board members notified of meeting by ��— �� _ List members, date notified and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. � Name Date Plan a To Attend I Person making -appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Na y Date Phone or Mail. Notified �M/M Gary Lofquist,891 66th Avenue N.E. -M/M Lewis Wells, 6553 Oakley Drive N.E. /M William Doyle, 6551 Oakley Drive N.E. M/M Harold Marchand, 1001 Mississippi Street N.E. Y,MIM Hilary Mayers, 969 Mississippi Street N.E. /M John Kurak, 6547 Oakley Drive N.E. M/M Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E. M/M Jeffrey Gustafson, 6558 Oakley Drive N.E. 6550 Oakley Drive N.E. M/M Ronald Bloom, 6542 Oakley Drive N.E. /M James Tauer, 6534 Oakley Drive N.E. /M Walter Miller, 945 Mississippi Street N.E. effrey, Timothy and Robert Gustafson 935 Mississippi Street V.E. _M/M Wayne Brodal, 931 Mississippi Street N.E. i f o - y CATY 01i- FA LEY, SUBJECT 61161 tlNilPrcr'" srrY Avm NE. FRIOLUY, Mr i. St113a ti3923 571L 1450 'll �'Lli- I ADDRESS '7 5- 3 APPEALS COMMISSION: VARIANCE'S DATE APPROVED ?"" DISAPPROVED_— DATE—8 — / 4 NO. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: REQUIRED: YES CITY COUNCIL: STIPULATIONS: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO. 0 N4ME, c k A /27 FEE RECEIPT Noe o$. LOT NO. BLOCK NO. TRACT OR ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Cl? / _ 5. W .2 9/4 1 VARIANCE REQUEST(S): (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) Lf �' S `e -°-r /a.rd �-o a o' specificList r F / ot 11 i?ATF.157- SIGNATURE B ADDRESS�� `� �G�/%,�' S1. EZ- °P_e�E.�LEPHONE NO671- 32,2 -7 Item #1, June 12, 1984 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 953 Mississippi Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.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 the aesthetic consideration of the adjoining neighbor to the rear who has frontage along the side street, to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. Section 205.07.3D.3, requires a rear yard depth of not less than 25 percent of the lot depth, with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. Section 205.04.5B, requires any accessory buildings to be placed in the rear or side yard only. Public purpose served by this requirement is to limit visual eneraochment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right of ways. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "The structures already exist but if the proposed lot split is approved, variances are necessary to make the structures legal, noncomforming buildings." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The present lot is 168.94 feet by 111.35 feet, located on the northwest corner of Mississippi Street and Oakley Drive, with the frontage on Mississippi Street. The applicant proposes to split off the southerly 84 feet to make a buildable site fronting Oakley Drive. The existing house is setback 121 feet from the front property line (Mississippi Street). If the lot split is approved, the existing house will then front on Oakley Street. This will result in the following variances being needed: 1) Front Yard setback of 25 feet versus required 35 feet; 2) Rear Yard setback of 21 feet versus required 27.8 feet; 3) Encroachment of accessory building (detached garage) into required front yard. If the Board's decision is to grant this request the staff would suggest that the following conditions be met: 1) The existing house change its address to Oakley Drive. 2) If the existing garage ever needs replacing, that it be moved from the front yard. 1.111M.1 TqATEE �-WITJANTEIMIMQA • -TIZ3HHIUPIR YR (RITTIT" a3OUM D.ldflUq o rL D- -,'aorf'! r. soldoea v-1 f'Q.*"flux"Iwolfs 63 '31 11 '6 ' Z}liols G -i 412 to 1 R 'lo ov.i t­-od arid --.)QJJbs-f eu o .IZJJJ: 6861 .-,Oil. :.0 :'I' q Ap Lyn 9,4 _, ew ai.l! Im.: J n 3=J S' a Fj LI ot. floi-joep, aD3jq -ad r,47 .... .. 0.: a -I- v -Iii 01 s± se bac n v, lteii (:J i.: zo*� J.1 -tlz C Jn0fi L63 -o I :11a,11.12M MM dVI'2ART8IH'JUMIA Fr r z J .1 b YI. 4 r E;z 'j o I :M o a a a d'i q q.f oz� c! -33 P") r ST xoLd-10"l- as 9 Zsv fi, tOa arff nv:.-O ral:!Y�01 _'L; c d 43 al itiq3 zlr)'L� I u J�. a P, I no 0'r, :1��113 llyli� ae.rjo" t�"JVD q S" 1'r Z..L.fT q .tS' la j.'ea i-j.-a:Y f c ADj'- Z TEP 'I q x o is QJ -.ra !;,I .4 1 Ogg i s,'a '-O )3`1 O'l n 't. oil- a J. 3J -'a rf 0 1TI 0 v L In' o :31i -Ve 'I i ZO aq!) b" Li i 1. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 4 Ms. Gabel stated the problem the Commission runs into is that if they grant one of these requests, it then sets a precedent for other people to come in with similar requests. She stated they understand that people need to advertise to remain in business, and they are not unsympathetic to that; however, the Commission does have a responsibility to the community to make sure there is not a proliferation of these kinds of signs. MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 214 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF A FREE STANDING SIGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET TO =98 SQUARE FEET; TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 7 1/2 FEET OFF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 3 FEET OFF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, ON LOT 10, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 23, THE SAME BEING 6485 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, GABEL, AND GEROU VOTING AYE, PLEMEL AND BARNA VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Gabel stated this request would go to City Council on July 2. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 27.8 . ., AND REDUCE THE F= YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FT. TO 25 FT., AND TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE CHANGED ON THIS PROPERTY.7RE VARIANCES ARE REOUIRED BECAUSE Lei b-IiOR'S SUB -DI S��N N0. 93 FUSSISSIPPI .E:Ilfequest by John . Ai cbcock, 9bib lyler "street,-N.E., Blaine, MOTION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY MR. PLEMEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:55 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 953 Mississippi Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.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 the aesthetic consideration of the adjoining neighbor to the rear who has frontage along the side street, to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. V APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 129-1984 PAGE 3 stated they are not allowed under the sign ordinance to use -the free-standing swing signs to advertise that are available and used in some communities. Mr. Barna stated he could attest to seeing 49'er Days advertising on this sign for the last couple of years. Mr. Swingdorf does not have his building plastered with a lot of advertising. , Ms. Sprang stated Mr. Swingdorf is qu'te a civic minded person. Mr. Swingdorf runs a very clean, respectable busin ss. MOT al BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY BARNA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICEV A , ALL VOTING A , CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:45 P.M. Mr. Plemel statedhas drive by this station many times, and he did not think this sign has es an a _sore in the pasta He stated he would be in favor of the variance. Mr. Barna stated he did of think the sign was an eyesore. Actually, it was not that visible to north nd traffic and for southbound traffic it served a purpose as far as advert' ing for the store itself. He did not think this lot was excessively signed a d 18 sq, ft. over existing code was not that much of an overage. Ms. Gerou stated that sin a there w"*s a'5' x 10' "Spur" sign and a 4' x 4' price sign, was here really a eed for another 4' x 8' sign? She was thinking of the Union 76 station where t e Appeals Commission denied a similar request. Mr. Betzold stated he a so recalled that exa le. The Union 76 station made the same pitch that th had products to adve ise and messages to convey, and the Appeals Commis ion denied that request tating the code. Ms. Gabel statedthat as part of the reason for the ause in the code that if something has been grandfathered in and is more than'50% damaged, a variance is needed. It gives he City an opportunity to re-examine things and bring things into complianc that are out of code. She stated that, as Ms. Gerou and Mr. Betzold hadntioned, there is some history for this. The Appeals Commission did deny imilar requests for Union Oil and Western. She stated everyone wants more pace to advertise, but there is a limit and a reason for the code. She stat d she was not in favor of this variance for those reasons. Ms. Sprang stated,t at with regard to the Western Station, it is a company - operated station," ned and operated by the corporation. In this case, Mr. Swingdorf is dh individual businessman. His family depends on that station for their livelihood. He is at a competitive disadvantage with a company that operates a chain of stations. t* APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 5 Section 205.07.3D.3 requires a rear yard depth of not less than 25 percent of the.lot depth, with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required. I. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. Section 205.04.5B requires any accessory buildings to be placed in the rear or side yard only. Public purpose served by this requirement into limit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right-of-ways. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "The structures already exist but if the proposed lot split is approved, variances are necessary to make the structures legal, nonconforming buildings." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The present lot is 168.94 feet by 111.35 feet, located on the northwest corner of Mississippi Street and Oakley Drive, with the frontage on Mississippi Street. The applicant proposes to split off the southerly 84 feet to make a buildable site fronting Oakley Drive. The existing house is set back 121 feet from the front property line (Mississippi Street). If the lot split is approved, the existing house will then front on Oakley Street. This will result in the following variances being needed: (1) Front yard setback of 25 feet versus required 35 feet; (2) Rear yard setback of 21 feet versus requires 27.8 feet; (3) Encroachment of accessory building (detached garage) into required front yard. If the Board's decision is to grant this request, the staff would suggest that the following conditions be met: (1) The existing house change its address to Oakley Drive; (2) If the existing garage ever needs replacing, that it be moved from the front,yard. Ms. Gabel stated this item was before the Planning Commission twice. It was tabled the first time because it came to the Planning Commission as a lot split with a request for variances. Both she and Ms. Schnabel, Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, could not recall a lot split being granted with variances, primarily because there is a public hearing involved with variances and there is not a public hearing with a lot split. Ms. Gabel stated the lot split was tabled with a request from the Planning Commission that further research be done. Last week, the Planning Commission approved the lot split on a 3-2 vote with some stipulations. One stipulation h APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 6 was based on the approval of the variances by the Appeals Commission, and another stipulation was that the existing garage be moved from its present location to a location south of the existing house, so there would not be a garage in front of a house. Mr. Clark stated three variances were being requested. However, as Ms. Gabel had stated, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split with the stipulation that the garage be relocated from the front to the south of the house, between the house and the lot line. If that were to be done, it would result in the need for only one variance and that was for the rear yard between the house and the westerly property line from 28.7 ft. to 21 ft. Ms. Gabel stated one of the reasons she voted against the lot split at the Planning Commission was because of the garage being in the front yard. Other reasons were there would be no need for variances if there was no lot split and because of the deep setbacks of 50+ ft..along Mississippi St. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Hitchcock if he had any comments to make regarding his proposal. Mr. Hitchcock stated he had nothing to add at this time. He stated he had a blueprint of -the house he proposed to build in the new lot if the lot split and variances were approved. Chairperson Gabel declared a 5 -minute recess in order for the people in the audience to have a chance to look at the blueprint. Ms.Gabel asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments or ask any questions regarding this request for variances. Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated he lived across the street. He stated the idea of the type of home that would be constructed with a tuck - under garage was out of character for this neighborhood. He stated the homes along there all have a setback of around 100 ft., and he did not think a house should be put in on that corner. The house would be closer to Mississippi St. than Oakley Drive. Mr. Hilary Mayers, 969 Mississippi St., stated his house was set back 95 ft. from Mississippi. He stated something should be done about the existing garage before anything else was done. Ms. Barb Tauer, 6534 Oakley Drive, stated she lived two houses to the north. No matter where the existing garage is placed, they are going to look at the side of a house unless Mr. Hitchcock remodels the house and puts in a door on the east side of the house. Mr. Jim Tauer, 6534 Oakley Drive, stated if the garage was removed, there would be plenty of setback, but the house should be remodeled and upgraded so it looked like a house that faces Oakley Drive. a APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 7 Mr. Ed Berntson, 925 Mississippi St., stated that at the time he built here, these houses were set back 100 ft. from the street so thgre would be a nice frontage. That 100 ft. setback runs from Able St. to Highway 65. He would be opposed to any development ahead of that building line from Able St. to Highway 65 as being out of compliance with the existing properties on Mississippi St. Mr. Wayne Brodal, 931 Mississippi St., stated he really opposed having a house on the corner of Mississippi St. and Oakley Drive because it would make every- thing look cluttered in that corner. Mr. Tim Gustafson, 935 Mississippi St., stated his house was the closest one to Mississippi St., and in the future he planned to lift his house and move it back. He stated he bought his home because of the deep setback. He stated if the new house was built on the corner, he would be looking at someone's back yard, rather than down Mississippi St. He did not want to see a house go in on that corner. Mr. Hitchcock stated that based on past experience, was he asking for an unreasonable rear yard variance? Ms. Gabel stated she could not really answer that. She stated she has been on the Commission for a long time, and she has not seen anything that is comparable to this particular item. It was unique in that the lot split created the need for the variances. It was unique because of the 50-100 ft. setbacks along Mississippi St. The Commission has to look at each situation individually. Mr. Barna stated it would not be unique of Mr. Hitchcock already owned the property and wanted to put an addition onto the back of the house and for that reason requested a variance. What they are finding here is that the petitioner is creating the need. for the variance by splitting the lot, so technically there is no hardship, and the Appeals Commission has to base its decision on the hardship. Mr. Hitchcock stated he was creating one problem, but he felt he was also cleaning up another problem in terms of the appearance of the property now from Oakley Drive. Some people oppose the building onthe corner of Oakley and Mississippi. At the Planning Commission meeting, he made the statement that at some time in the future, because of the lack of land in Fridley, there will be other people coming in for similar requests. .MOTION BY MS. GEROU.. SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Betzold stated this particular area was developed in a certain way, and it is going to remain this way for a long time. The houses that exist there now are going to remain in the same position. To grant the variances for the purposes of the lot split would significantly alter this particular block. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 8 Mr. Betzold stated the neighbors have expressed their concerns. They all have a certain amount of pride and enjoyment in the way their property is situated now. The approval of the lot split and variancds would very drastically affect them. He stated he did not think it would be in the best interests of the neighborhood to grant the variances and allow the lot split. Mr. Barna stated he would definitely be opposed to the garage in the front yard and the front yard variance. The rear yard variance was the only variance he could see as a viable variance except for the fact that it is self-created, and there is no hardship. Under the rules set up for the Commission, they are required to find a reasonable cause for the variance, and he could see nothing here that was not self-created. It is strictly a speculation situation, and with the lot split not there, the variance would not be required. He would have to vote against all three variances. Ms. Gerou stated she could see no hardship. The house that would be built on the corner of Mississippi and Oakley was not consistent with the neighbor- hood, and she thought it would be an eyesore. Mr. Plemel stated he agreed with all that had been said. This is a unique area with the large setbacks, older homes, and nice trees. -It is something different in Fridley, and he liked to think they still had room for that kind of uniqueness. He stated he felt the neighbors had some valid objections. He stated the existing garage was a problem, but moving it would create other problems. He stated he would vote against the variances. Ms. Gabel stated she felt the variances were brought on by the lot split. There was no question that the hardship was self-imposed, and she did think the Commission had a responsibility to the integrity of this neighbor- hood that have 50+ ft.setbacks in their front yards.She did not disagree with Mr. Hitchcock that because of the value of land here, these things may be happening in the future, but for now, they have a responsibility to live up to the expectations of the community. At this point in time, she did not see this as something the community necessarily desired, and she would be opposed to the variances. MOTION BY AR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 27.8 FT. TO 21 FT., AND REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FT. TO 25 FT., AND TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE CHANGED ON THIS PROPERTY, THE VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF A IAT SPLIT REQUEST, WHICH CHANGES THE FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES ON PART OF LOT 8 H, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 21, THE SAME BEING 953 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel stated this item would go to the City Council on July 2 because of the lot split involved and some of the things that have happened. The City Council will have final action on the lot split request and request for variances. f I APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1984 PAGE 9 OURNMENT: ION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ADJOURN THE'MEETING. UPON A CE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE JUNE 12, 1984, EALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. l ly suj mi tted, ing Secretary A 7Z 4,p ze- C4- 3; 9316 3; 11B. LS V— a 6 Mr. Flora stated the variances would be to increase of a free standing sign from 80 square feet to 98 square feet reduce the setback_ from 10 feet to 7 1/2 feet from the west proper/Tdsigoe neand reduce he requir etback from 10 feet to 3 feet from the souoperty line. Mr. lora stated the Appeals Commission felt. if this :quest was granted, it wo d set a precedent for other stations to in ease their signs and, 6therefo e, recommended denial of the variance req st. Ms. Spra stated they are not attempting to p up more square footage of sign, but to replace the signage damaged y the wind. She stated two persons on the Appeals Commission were amiliar with the property and indicated the didn't feel the previous s gn was an eyesore and the property didn't have ex essive signage. Mayor Nee stated he sign could be r laced with a comparable sign only a little smaller a set back 4rtger. Ms. Sprang stated it would be difficult to meet t setbackrrements because it would place the sign about in the middle o the drive ay. Mr. Flora stated the co a req res the sign be 10 feet from any property line or driveway and thi si n is 7 1/2 feet from the west property line and three feet from the south operty line. He stated the code limit is 80 square feet for signs and th currently have an existing 66 square foot sign so it would leave o y additional 14 square feet for another sign. Councilman Fizpatritated theneil has consistently denied similar requests. \ MOTION by Counciln Fitzpatrick to c our with the recommendation of the Appeals Commissi and deny the varianc request. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee sta d he shares Mr. Barn's fXCou at he doesn't see a problem with this pa ticular property. but thhas turned down similar requests. Cou/ilmHamernik stated he feels the Counc 1 should support the bus in the City and has a problem with de ing it because the bus more than a gas station.Cou Barnette stated he knows the owner, Mr. Sw ngdorf, and how inv is in the community and would go along with the inority on the ADDmission. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Hamernik and Councilman Barnette voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a 3 to 2 vote. yARIANCE REQUESTS TO REDUCE REAR ARD SRSBACK AND_R�S0 FRONS YARD SETBACK AND TO ALLOW. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING.�O JN 5>D i rezone the lots between 62nd Way and 61st Way from R-1 to R-3 to develop a "loft" home concept in this area. Mr. Nielson, 7144 Riverview Terrace. stated they have met with the City staff and neighbors in this area and would like this item tabled at this time. He stated he and Mr. DeGardner wish to come in with a new proposal which came about after their meetings and received a positive reaction from 'the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table this item until the petitioner requests it be brought back to the Council. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the affected residents would be notified when the proposal is brought back to the Council. 11. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF _THE .PLANNING -COMMISSION MEETING 9E .J-05 20. 19$4: 11A. CONSIDEJRATTON_ JOY19 SPECIAL USB _PERMIT- _#84 11 TO ALL -01d CONSTRUCTION .OF- Al SECOND ACCESS -08Y BUILjnlW AT 29-8 E.LY STREET JL. E.,, SY CERYL A. MICHURSKI• Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a special use permit to allow an accessory building, a 22 x 24 foot detached garage. to the rear of the property. He stated the property is located on the corner of Ely Street and Ruth Street, and it is required this garage be set back 30 feet from Ruth Street. He stated the petitioner wishes to construct a double garage in order to house three vehicles. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit with the stipulations that the driveway to the new garage be paved and a 30 foot setback be maintained for the garage off Ruth Street. Mr. Michurski, the petitioner, stated he has no problems with the stipulations. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant special use permit, $84-11, with the stipulations that the driveway to the new garage be paved and at least a 30 foot setback be maintained from Ruth Street. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11B. MINUTES OF THE-1PPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING_OF JUNE 12. 1984: JjRIANCE_ REQUESTS TO -INCREASE SIZE OF FREE SIGN AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK AT_6485 EAST RIVER ROAD N. -I, JBIX_RHODA M. SPRANG: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this property is located on the east corner of Mississippi Street and East River Road. he stated there are two pylon signs on the property, however, the one to the south was damaged in excess of 50% and cannot be replaced without a variance. -5- COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 2 1984 CHANGED AT 951 MISSISSlPpI ST1t � XZ., -M _J-0JW ISL.. HITCHCOCK: LOT SPLIT_REQUEST, L. 5�484-05-- Y.JOHN HITCHCOCK-(FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1984): Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the lot split request was presented to the Planning Commission which is to split off the south portion of the $lot located on Mississippi Street and Oakley Drive.. He stated the Commissison had considerable discussion about the lot, since they felt it was a change in the environment of the neighborhood. He stated the front door of the home would face Mississippi Street, but access would be on Oakley Drive in order to permit a new lot with access off Mississippi Street. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the lot split with six stipulations. He stated these were as follows: (1) the variances created by this lot split must be approved by the Appeals Commission; (2) the existing structure now facing Mississippi Street is to have a new address on Oakley after the lot is split; (3) a signed park fee agreement for one new lot in the amount of $750; (4) the lot split is to be registered with the County in a timely manner; (5) the existing garage (accessory building in front yard) is to be relocated to the side yard if it is to be replaced or substantially improved; and (6) the owner is to sign the lot split and variance requests. Mr. Flora statd when the issue came before the Appeals Commission, after the meeting of the Planning Commission, they looked at the existing structure which has a garage 25 feet off Oakley Drive and would have the front door facing the rear of the existing home. He stated the variance applied for was a front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 25 feet and a variance of the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. He stated there was discussion that the garage could be relocated and placed in front of the existing structure so it would be 35 feet back from Oakley Drive. Mr. Flora stated at the public hearing before the Appeals Commission. there were a total of seven neighbors who spoke against the variance. He stated the Appeals Commission felt to grant the variances would significantly alter this particular lot and change the complexion of the neighborhood and, therefore, recommended denial of the variance which means the lot split would also be denied, since this was contingent upon the Appeals Commission approval of the variance request. Mr. Hitchcock, the petitioner, stated he purchased this property contingent on obtaining the lot split and variances. He stated he felt it was a good lot to build on in the City and is willing to negotiate with the neighbors to find an acceptable solution. He stated the need for the front yard variance has been deleted as he agreed to move the garage. He stated he would be open to working out the plans for a home that would be suitable for the neighborhood. He stated the only variance he is requesting, at this point, is for the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. Mr. Hitchcock stated he took some photos of the area and the only two homes -7- It impacted are the first two homes on the east side of Oakley Drive. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this is an unusual lot and felt it is extremely critical that the neighborhood accept whatever is proposed. He stated it is not the inherent right of the property owner to receive the lot split because this is the reason the Council reviews these requests to ,determine how it would fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, felt the home didn't meet the setback requirements on Mississippi Street. He felt the house would stand out and would ruin the appearance in that area and obstruct the views. Mr. Walt Miller, 945 Mississippi Street, stated he definitely didn't think the house belongs there as it would disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock stated considering the opposition he is facing in the neighborhood, he wished to withdraw his request. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to accept the petitioner's withdrawal of the lot split and variance requests. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission mEeting of June 20, 1984. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. PRESENTATION BY HICKOK & ASSOCIATESS M M00RE_1d= J .STATUS: Mr. Boyer of Hickok and Associates submitte a summary sheet of what has transpired on the Phase II project of the _ore Lake restoration. Mr. Boyer stated over a year a/aroved lication was submitted to the Environmental Protectio Agency by the Pollution Control Agency for Phase II of the Moo a Lake rproject. He stated the Council acted in favor of procee ing, evthe City would receive only 50% of the funding for the Phas II por Mr. Boyer stated the or no dredging of the lake to get second part of the origina aqua screen material and s than 10 feet deep. He ated deeper areas of the 1 e to r determine whether th would ( grant application consisted of hydraulic d of the aquatic vegetation. He stated the oject was to go back and, basically, apply an d cover on top of this in water that is less there would also be an alum treatment in the Love the Phosphorus and to perform a study to successful. Mr. Boyer stated list year theytarted with the pilot project to determine if there was a eaper way raer than using the aqua screening; to determine if it was necessary to edge; and if a sand protective cover was required. -8- a Mr. Flora stated the variances would be to increase the size of a f e standing sign from 80 square feet to 98 square feet and to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 7 1/2 feet from the west property line and educe the required setback from 10 feet to 3 feet from the south property ine. Mr. Flora stated the Appeals Commission felt. if this request wo granted, it would set a precedent for other stations to increase thea signs and, 'therefore, recommended denial of the variance request. Ms. Sprang stated they are not attempting to put up more s ware footage of sign, but to replace the signage damaged by the winc)/. She stated two persons on the Appeals Commission were familiar with the property and indicated they didn't feel the previous sign was aney sore and the property didn't have excessive signage. Mayor Nee stated the sign could be replaced with comparable sign only a little smaller and set back farther. Ms. S ang stated it would be difficult to meet the setback requirements bee se it would place the sign about in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Flora stated the code requires the si be 10 feet from any property line or driveway and this sign is 7 1/2 f et from the west property line and three feet from the south property lin He stated the code limit is 80 square feet for signs and they Curren y have an existing 66 square foot sign so it would leave only an addit nal 14 square feet for another sign. Councilman Fizpatrick stated the C16uncil has consistently denied similar requests. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatr ck to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and deny he variance request. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee stated he sh es Mr. Barn's feeling that he doesn't see a problem with this particular property. but the Council has turned down similar requests. Councilman Ham nik stated he feels the Council should support the busines/eis the City and has a problem with denying it because the busines than a gas station. Councilnette stated he knows the owner. Mr. Swingdorf, and how involven the community and would go along with the minority on the Appealson. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Schneider, and MFn3to r Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Hamernik and Councilman Bette voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by 2 vote. 11B. VARIANCE REQUESTS TO REDUCE_REAR YARD SETJASB = REDUCE FRONT ARD SETBACK_ AND TO JLLDy DETACHED &=$DRY BUII,p10 S9 JE 6 .j CHANGED AZ MISSISS�PRJ S R�FaT N.E. BY J91i1 JL. HITCHCOCK: Im LOT SPLIT. -REQUEST. -L. -I3,484-05, BY_JOHN HITCHCOCK (FROM PLANNING COMMISSION_MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1984): Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the lot split request was presented to the Planning Commission which is to split off the south portion of the •lot located on Mississippi Street and Oakley Drive.. He stated the Commissison had considerable discussion about the lot, since they felt it was a change in the environment of the neighborhood. He stated the front door of the home would face Mississippi Street, but access would be on Oakley Drive in order to permit a new lot with access off Mississippi Street. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the lot split with six stipulations. He stated these were as follows: (1) the variances created by this lot aplit must be approved by the Appeals Commission; (2) the existing structure now facing Mississippi Street is to have a new address on Oakley after the lot is split; (3) a signed park fee agreement for one new lot in the amount of $750; (4) the lot split is to be registered with the County in a timely manner; (5) the existing garage (accessory building in front yard) is to be relocated to the side yard if it is to be replaced or substantially improved; and (6) the owner is to sign the lot split and variance requests. Mr. Flora statd when the issue came before the Appeals Commission, after the meeting of the Planning Commission, they looked at the existing structure which has a garage 25 feet off Oakley Drive and would have the front door facing the rear of the existing home. He stated the variance applied for was a front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 25 feet and a variance of the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. He stated there was discussion that the garage could be relocated and placed in front of the existing structure so it would be 35 feet back from Oakley Drive. Mr. Flora stated at the public hearing before the Appeals Commission. there were a total of seven neighbors who spoke against the variance. He stated the Appeals Commission felt to grant the variances would significantly alter this particular lot and change the complexion of the neighborhood and, therefore, recommended denial of the variance which means the lot split would also be denied, since this was contingent upon the Appeals Commission approval of the variance request. Mr. Hitchcock, the petitioner, stated he purchased this property contingent on obtaining the lot split and variances. He stated he felt it was a good lot to build on in the City and is willing to negotiate with the neighbors to find an acceptable solution. He stated the need for the front yard variance has been deleted as he agreed to move the garage. He stated he would be open to working out the plans for a home that would be suitable for the neighborhood. He stated the only variance he is requesting, at this point, is for the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. Mr. Hitchcock stated he took some photos of the area and the only two homes —7— impacted are the first two homes on the east side of Oakley Drive. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this is an unusual lot and felt it is extremely critical that the neighborhood accept whatever is proposed. He stated it is not the inherent right of the property owner to receive the lot split because this is the reason the Council reviews these requests to determine how it would fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, felt the home didn't meet the setback requirements on Mississippi Street. He felt the house would stand out and would ruin the appearance in that area and obstruct the views. Mr. Walt Miller, 945 Mississippi Street, stated he definitely didn't think the house belongs there as it would disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock stated considering the opposition he is facing in the neighborhood, he wished to withdraw his request. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to accept the petitioner's withdrawal of the lot split and variance requests. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission mEeting of June 20, 1984. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. PRESENTATION BY HICKOK & DISSOCIATES 0 `'199RE-IA B PROJECT -STATUS Mr. Boyer of Hickok and Associates submitted a summary sheet of what has transpired on the Phase II project of the Moore Lake restoration. Mr. Boyer stated over a year ago an application was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and approved by the Pollution Control Agency for Phase II of the Moore Lake restoration project. He stated the Council acted in favor of proceeding, even though the City would receive only 50% of the funding for the Phase II portion. Mr. Boyer stated the original grant application consisted of hydraulic dredging of the lake to get rid of the aquatic vegetation. He stated the second part of the original project was to go back and, basically, apply an aqua screen material and a sand cover on top of this in water that is less than 10 feet deep. He stated there would also be an alum treatment in the deeper areas of the lake to remove the Phosphorus and to perform a study to determine whether this would be successful. Mr. Boyer stated last year they started with the pilot project to determine if there was a cheaper way rather than using the aqua screening; to determine if it was necessary to dredge; and if a sand protective cover was required. -8- b+�r{ r � m 12.11 E., k Jr s..