Loading...
VAR 98-22.. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of: Variance, VAR #98-22 Owner: Cully A. Smutzler and Michele M. Smutzler APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 26th day of August, 1998, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; and to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 30 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street N.E. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approved with no stipulations. See Appeals Commission minutes dated August 26, 1998. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Debra A. Skogen, 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 Fridley, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the -2&fh day of , ©?.000 DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Debra A. Skogen, City Cle too- '! e Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within that period. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kuechle called the August 26, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Lary Kuechle, Terrie Mau, Ken Vos, Carol Beaulieu, Blaine Jones Members Absent: None Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Dave & Marcia Wiger, 901 Rice Creek Terrace Daniel Butterfield, 2301 Milwaukee Avenue, Minneapolis Peter & Myrtle Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive Cully & Michele Smutzler, 1027 Mississippi Street Margaret Schatz, First Industrial L.P., Eden Prairie Dan Shedlov, First Industrial L.P., Eden Prairie APPROVAL OF JULY 22 1998 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the July 22, 1998, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98-22 BY CULLY & MICHELLE SMUTZLER: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((2)) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((3)) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 25 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, 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 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for an 8 -foot side yard variance in conjunction with an earlier request for a lot split on this property. The Planning Commission considered and APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 2 approved the Lot Split, L.S. #98-01. If the variance is granted, the petitioners' home will remain and will have a reduced side yard dimension between the garage and right-of-way on Brookview Drive. Mr. Hickok stated the subject parcel is located on a comer lot at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Brookview Drive. Brookview is the frontage road along Highway 65. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. Originally, the lot size was 26,776.2 square feet. It was divided into two lots. As a part of that subdivision, the lot line was moved closer to the garage creating a lot to the north which is 95 feet wide. The lot line is now 17 feet from the side of the garage. The code states that in a situation where a garage faces a side street on a comer lot, if that garage is closer than 25 feet to the property line and if the house to the north is to face that street where the garage will enter, then that setback for the garage needs to be a minimum of 30 feet. The garage as it exists is at 22.1 feet. The request would allow the existing garage to remain in its present location without adjustment to the lot line or to the garage on its existing foundation. Mr. Hickok stated the hardship, as indicated by the petitioner, is that this would enable them to split the lot to the north at a larger size, it would be more similar to the neighborhood, and it would provide more options to the builder. Staff did talk to the petitioners about the possibility of narrowing the new lot dimension to provide the setback dimension from the lot line thus eliminating the need for a variance. The petitioners felt the trees, the future placement of the home, etc., caused them to want the additional frontage for the newly created lot and thereby requiring a variance on this parcel. Mr. Hickok stated the request is within previously granted variances; therefore, staff has not recommendation. Dr. Vos stated the agenda states the reduction for the right-of-way is from 25 feet to 22 feet. Is the setback really 30 feet to 22 feet? Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Dr. Vos asked what impact would there be for the purchaser of the lot to the north. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners actually have an advantage in that they still own the lot to the north and, when they sell that piece of property, they can describe the condition of the garage being closer to the roadway. If the potential purchaser builds on that lot, this garage may narrow the view from the future home. In this case with them owning the lot and discussing this with the future owners, the future owners can position their home to compensate for that setback. Dr. Vos asked if there are any demands on the potential purchaser to do anything different. Mr. Hickok stated, no. Stipulations were placed on the lot split, one of which was that this variance be approved. Mr. Hickok stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Eisenzimmer had a concern about drainage, the creation of this lot, and what that would do for run off on his APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 3 property. As part of that approval process, a stipulation on the newly created lot is that a grading and drainage plan be approved by the City. The land is higher at the road and drains toward the back of the lot. Drainage will occur toward the street from the house forward and any runoff from the roof will be piped so that it goes toward the street. He is concerned about additional run off in the back because he is already experiencing water in the back of his property and felt that a new home would create new run off. By design, we can assure that this will not happen. This is not related to the setback variance. Mr. Kuechle asked that if the variance is granted and the petitioner wants to build a new garage in the future, will this variance apply to that or do they have to get a new variance? Mr. Hickok stated they would need to get a new variance. Ms. Smutzler stated the staff report was specific. They are asking for a variance as part of the lot split. She understands that since previous variances were approved, there are no stipulations. Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner understood they were here as a result of the lot split. Ms. Smutzler stated she understood. They initiated the lot split. The lots in their neighborhood are larger. They felt it would be more appealing to a buyer. A buyer could put a nice size house on the lot and still have quite a bit of a side yard. By having extra land, it would make it more appealing to a buyer. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked if they had the plan or drawing for the drainage. Mr. Hickok stated that as a result of the comments at the Planning Commission for the lot split, the engineering staff has gone out to analyze the grading and drainage issue brought up by Mr. Eisenzimmer. However, he is not prepared to address the outcome or solution. It appears there are as many as 20 properties that would be affected by installation of a storm sewer in this area. Mr. Eisenzimmer's concern is that water is in his back yard. There is not an easy fix. There is not a place to put a storm sewer. According to the engineers, they could put in a catch basin. At this time, the engineers have not concluded what the best outcome would be but continue to analyze that issue. Mr. 'Eisenzimmer stated he talked to an engineer earlier in the day, who stated there was nothing the engineering staff could do about it. There is another lot where the City removed the house. With that lot and the one that is being created, he believed if they could get the drainage out of there, the cost to the City would be minimal. By the time that house is built and this house is built and the two lots join at the comer, there is a swale that could be lowered perhaps two feet at the end of it into the easement area. At that point, it could eliminate all that water. He had the engineers out, and they did find that his lot is lower than the others. The water will come to his back yard. If the water builds up in the back of these homes, it will come to his back yard. he did not feel that his back yard should be the drainage point for the neighborhood. He stated they should get this worked out; otherwise, they want him to build a swale or a buffer in the back to accommodate this water. If that is the case, he will just build a retaining wall around the yard and let the water go where it wants to. It floods his basement. He has been flooded APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 4 out twice already. In the winter months through early spring, he cannot leave because he doesn't know what is going to happen. As long as he is here, he can control it. If he leaves, he will have a basement full of water again. He doesn't feel this is right. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that as long as these lots are available and they can do something with them, let's do it now instead of facing it later. He has nothing against the lot split but he doesn't want all the water in that neighborhood. That lot is lower than his lot but when that one fills up, it then comes over to his lot. If they could get this straightened out, he would be happy. He is not going to sit back and listen to an engineer saying there is nothing that can be done. They did find out that something can be done but it costs too much money. With common sense and reason, they should be able to get this problem resolved without a large amount of cost. Dr. Vos asked if Mr. Eisenzimmer was for or against the variance. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he did not care. The only thing he is concerned about is the water draining off this lot and the other empty lot. Mr. Kuechle asked if the City owned the adjacent lot. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. The Fridley HRA purchased that property as part of their scattered site plan and they do have control over the lot. The lot will go on the market for the construction of a new home. As part of that, the staff person can talk to the engineering staff to see what things can happen here. He believed that this lot also drops away from the street. Staff recommended on the lot split to minimize the water that - comes in this direction by taking all the water from the roof and direct it toward the street. In this manner, it will not increase the amount of run off. The grading plan will have to be approved in order to do that. They can do something similar with the other lot to direct the run-off toward the street. He was not certain what the engineers have done or what Mr. Femelius has done. Mr. Eisenzimmer's points have been heard and are being taken seriously. Staff will be glad to continue the dialogue and work with him to resolve this issue. Dr. Vos stated it is a point well taken. When you begin putting houses on now existing property, it does change the run-off and water table. He thought this neighbor has a legitimate .concern. Since there are two opportunities to do something, he thought something could be done there. Ms. Beaulieu asked if staff was saying, with grading and drainage pre -approval, this problem, though not solved, will not be made worse. Mr. Hickok stated this is correct. Dr. Vos stated this has not been true in his experience so he would be very cautious. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 5 Dr. Vos stated the petitioners have an existing garage. He did not see any advantage to moving the garage back. The site lines from the comer will not impede the traffic. It is quite a way down Brookview Drive. The petitioner will sell off the lot that was split and whoever buys it must talk to the petitioner. He did not think they had any right to put on a stipulation about drainage on a lot that is not affected by the variance. He would vote in favor without a stipulation. Ms. Mau agreed. She liked the idea that they were changing the lot split enough to make a good sized lot. It does create a hardship so they would need the variance. It would look better with a bigger lot. She would vote in favor of the request. Mr. Jones stated he would vote in favor. He has a clear understanding about the drainage issues, and he shares those concerns. He did not believe that was in the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission. He also believes that a larger lot would make a more appealing building site. Ms. Beaulieu agreed. She hoped Mr. Eisenzimmer's problems are not made worse. She would vote in favor of the request. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval Variance Request, #98-22, by Cully and Michelle Smutzler, to reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; and to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 30 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at _1027 Mississippi Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) o the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 19 feet allow the construction of an attached three - season porch on Lot 10, Block 1, B ookview Terrace, 2nd Addition, generally located at 901 Rice Creek Terrace. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC to waive the reading of the public hearing RPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED RING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is to reduce the re r yard setback from 31.25 feet to 19 feet to allow the construction of an attached three-seson porch. The dimensions of the porch are 22 feet x 14 feet. An uncovered deck currentI exists in this location. It is their intent to convert the deck to a three -season porch. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner indicated on their herdship statement that the porch woWd not infringe on others' rights because there are no h uses behind their house. The TORRENS q 3 r ❑ Certified ',y Ript #• rA2 Date Mailed ,%eNirg:w� ❑ Tax Liens / Releases Doc. Order of ❑ Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd ✓ by: Recordability: ❑ Transfer ❑ New Desc. ❑ Division ❑ GAC Filing Fees: ❑ Status ❑ Def. Spec Well Certificate Received this Date: ❑ Other ❑ No Change Refund Recl # Notes: From/ # of Comp. Cert. # ( New Certs. & Entry Tract Comp. Typed Updated: / Complete BK PG E f r 0 R-WERME 348928.0 TORRENS FRIOIEY CITY OF VALERIE ER I CKSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIOL Y9 MN 55432 DOCUMENT NO. 348928.0 TORRENS ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON JAN 27 2000 AT 5:00 PM AND WAS DULY RECORDED. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19.50 PAID. RECEIPT NO.n00009235 EDWARD M. S ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES KHJ BY DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES CIIYOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287 APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Cully & Michele Smutzler 1027 Mississippi Street Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smutzler: September 8, 1998 On August 26, 1998, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #98-22, to reduce the reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet and to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 30 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street. You have one year from the date of the Appeals Commission action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction during this 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 572-3599. Sincerely, SHickokj PlAhning Coordinator SH:Is Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley Planning Department by September 14, 1998. oncur with action t n. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kuechle called the August 26, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Lary Kuechle, Terrie Mau, Ken Vos, Carol Beaulieu, Blaine Jones Members Absent: None Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Dave & Marcia Wiger, 901 Rice Creek Terrace Daniel Butterfield, 2301 Milwaukee Avenue, Minneapolis Peter & Myrtle Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive Cully & Michele Smutzler, 1027 Mississippi Street Margaret Schatz, First Industrial L.P., Eden Prairie Dan Shedlov, First Industrial L.P., Eden Prairie APPROVAL OF JULY 22 1998 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the July 22, 1998, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((2)) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((3)) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 25 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, 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 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for an 8 -foot side yard variance in conjunction with an earlier request for a lot split on this property. The Planning Commission considered and APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 2 approved the Lot Split, L.S. #98-01. If the variance is granted, the petitioners' home will remain and will have a reduced side yard dimension between the garage and right-of-way on Brookview Drive. Mr. Hickok stated the subject parcel is located on a comer lot at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Brookview Drive. Brookview is the frontage road along Highway 65. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. Originally, the lot size was 26,776.2 square feet. It was divided into two lots. As a part of that subdivision, the lot line was moved closer to the garage creating a lot to the north which is 95 feet wide. The lot line is now 17 feet from the side of the garage. The code states that in a situation where a garage faces a side street on a comer lot, if that garage is closer than 25 feet to the property line and if the house to the north is to face that street where the garage will enter, then that setback for the garage needs to be a minimum of 30 feet. The garage as it exists is at 22.1 feet. The request would allow the existing garage to remain in its present location without adjustment to the lot line or to the garage on its existing foundation. Mr. Hickok stated the hardship, as indicated by the petitioner, is that this would enable them to split the lot to the north at a larger size, it would be more similar to the neighborhood, and it would provide more options to the builder. Staff did talk to the petitioners about the possibility of narrowing the new lot dimension to provide the setback dimension from the lot line thus eliminating the need for a variance. The petitioners felt the trees, the future placement of the home, etc., caused them to want the additional frontage for the newly created lot and thereby requiring a variance on this parcel. Mr. Hickok stated the request is within previously granted variances; therefore, staff has not recommendation. Dr. Vos stated the agenda states the reduction for the right-of-way is from 25 feet to 22 feet. Is the setback really 30 feet to 22 feet? Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Dr. Vos asked what impact would there be for the purchaser of the lot to the north. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners actually have an advantage in that they still own the lot to the north and, when they sell that piece of property, they can describe the condition of the garage being closer to the roadway. If the potential purchaser builds on that lot, this garage may narrow the view from the future home. In this case with them owning the lot and discussing this with the future owners, the future owners can position their home to compensate for that setback. Dr. Vos asked if there are any demands on the potential purchaser to do anything different. Mr. Hickok stated, no. Stipulations were placed on the lot split, one of which was that this variance be approved. Mr. Hickok stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Eisenzimmer had a concern about drainage, the creation of this lot, and what that would do for run off on his APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 3 property. As part of that approval process, a stipulation on the newly created lot is that a grading and drainage plan be approved by the City. The land is higher at the road and drains toward the back of the lot. Drainage will occur toward the street from the house forward and any runoff from the roof will be piped so that it goes toward the street. He is concerned about additional run off in the back because he is already experiencing water in the back of his property and felt that a new home would create new run off. By design, we can assure that this will not happen. This is not related to the setback variance. Mr. Kuechle asked that if the variance is granted and the petitioner wants to build a new garage in the future, will this variance apply to that or do they have to get a new variance? Mr. Hickok stated they would need to get a new variance. Ms. Smutzler stated the staff report was specific. They are asking for a variance as part of the lot split. She understands that since previous variances were approved, there are no stipulations. Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner understood they were here as a result of the lot split. Ms. Smutzler stated she understood. They initiated the lot split. The lots in their neighborhood are larger. They felt it would be more appealing to a buyer. A buyer could put a nice size house on the lot and still have quite a bit of a side yard. By having extra land, it would make it more appealing to a buyer. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked if they had the plan or drawing for the drainage. Mr. Hickok stated that as a result of the comments at the Planning Commission for the lot split, the engineering staff has gone out to analyze the grading and drainage issue brought up by Mr. Eisenzimmer. However, he is not prepared to address the outcome or solution. It appears there are as many as 20 properties that would be affected by installation of a storm sewer in this area. Mr. Eisenzimmer's concern is that water is in his back yard. There is not an easy fix. There is not a place to put a storm sewer. According to the engineers, they could put in a catch basin. At this time, the engineers have not concluded what the best outcome would be but continue to analyze that issue. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he talked to an engineer earlier in the day, who stated there was nothing the engineering staff could do about it. There is another lot where the City removed the house. With that lot and the one that is being created, he believed if they could get the drainage out of there, the cost to the City would be minimal. By the time that house is built and this house is built and the two lots join at the comer, there is a swale that could be lowered perhaps two feet at the end of it into the easement area. At that point, it could eliminate all that water. He had the engineers out, and they did find that his lot is lower than the others. The water will come to his back yard. If the water builds up in the back of these homes, it will come to his back yard. he did not feel that his back yard should be the drainage point for the neighborhood. He stated they should get this worked out; otherwise, they want him to build a swale or a buffer in the back to accommodate this water. If that is the case, he will just build a retaining wall around the yard and let the water go where it wants to. It floods his basement. He has been flooded APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 4 out twice already. In the winter months through early spring, he cannot leave because he doesn't know what is going to happen. As long as he is here, he can control it. If he leaves, he will have a basement full of water again. He doesn't feel this is right. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that as long as these lots are available and they can do something with them, let's do it now instead of facing it later. He has nothing against the lot split but he doesn't want all the water in that neighborhood. That lot is lower than his lot but when that one fills up, it then comes over to his lot. If they could get this straightened out, he would be happy. He is not going to sit back and listen to an engineer saying there is nothing that can be done. They did find out that something can be done but it costs too much money. With common sense and reason, they should be able to get this problem resolved without a large amount of cost. Dr. Vos asked if Mr. Eisenzimmer was for or against the variance. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he did not care. The only thing he is concerned about is the water draining off this lot and the other empty lot. Mr. Kuechle asked if the City owned the adjacent lot. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. The Fridley HRA purchased that property as part of their scattered site plan and they do have control over the lot. The lot will go on the market for the construction of a new home. As part of that, the staff person can talk to the engineering staff to see what things can happen here. He believed that this lot also drops away from the street. Staff recommended on the lot split to minimize the water that comes in this direction by taking all the water from the roof and direct it toward the street. In this manner, it will not increase the amount of run off. The grading plan will have to be approved in order to do that. They can do something similar with the other lot to direct the run-off toward the street. He was not certain what the engineers have done or what Mr. Femelius has done. Mr. Eisenzimmer's points have been heard and are being taken seriously. Staff will be glad to continue the dialogue and work with him to resolve this issue. Dr. Vos stated it is a point well taken. When you begin putting houses on now existing property, it does change the run-off and water table. He thought this neighbor has a legitimate concern. Since there are two opportunities to do something, he thought something could be done there. Ms. Beaulieu asked if staff was saying, with grading and drainage pre -approval, this problem, though not solved, will not be made worse. Mr. Hickok stated this is correct. Dr. Vos stated this has not been true in his experience so he would be very cautious. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998 PAGE 5 Dr. Vos stated the petitioners have an existing garage. He did not see any advantage to moving the garage back. The site lines from the comer will not impede the traffic. It is quite a way down Brookview Drive. The petitioner will sell off the lot that was split and whoever buys it must talk to the petitioner. He did not think they had any right to put on a stipulation about drainage on a lot that is not affected by the variance. He would vote in favor without a stipulation. Ms. Mau agreed. She liked the idea that they were changing the lot split enough to make a good sized lot. It does create a hardship so they would need the variance. It would look better with a bigger lot. She would vote in favor of the request. Mr. Jones stated he would vote in favor. He has a clear understanding about the drainage issues, and he shares those concerns. He did not believe that was in the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission. He also believes that a larger lot would make a more appealing building site. Ms. Beaulieu agreed. She hoped Mr. Eisenzimmer's problems are not made worse. She would vote in favor of the request. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval Variance Request, #98-22, by Cully and Michelle Smutzler, to reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; and to reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 30 feet to 22.1 feet to allow an existing garage to remain in its present location on the south 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98- 23. BY DAVID & MARCIA V1 E : Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 1 feet to allow the construction of an attached three - season porch on Lot 10, Bloc 1, Brookview Terrace, 2nd Addition, generally located at 901 Rice Creek Te ace. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by r. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING YE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE P LIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is to redu the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 19 feet to allow the construction of an attached t ree-season porch. The dimensions of the porch are 22 feet x 14 feet. An uncovered deckcurrently exists in this location. It is their intent to convert the deck to a three -season por h. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner indicated o their hardship statement that the porch would not infringe on others' rights because there re no houses behind their house. The Variance to Reduce the Side Yard Setback for the Garage at 1027 Mississippi Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST Michele and Cully Smutzoer are requesting an 8' side yard variance in conjunction their earlier request for a lot split (IS #98-01). If the requested variance is granted, the Smutzler home at 1027 Mississippi will remain and will have a reduced yard dimension between the garage and the right-of-way of Brookview Drive. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The original lot was 26,776.2 square feet in area (0.61 acres) and its dimensions were 107.24 feet by 250 feet. The northernmost 95' was separated from the lot through the subdivision process. Official recording of the lot split depends on the outcome of this variance process. The remainder of the lot contains the house and has frontage on both Mississippi Street and Brookview Drive. It is now described as the southern 155' of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition. The Smutzler home with its detached garage faces Mississippi with garage access from Brookview Drive. Code requires that a garage must be 30 feet from the side street when that garage is within 25 feet of the common lot line and the adjacent home faces that side street. Prior to the subdivision, this lot had 112 feet between the garage and the property line and therefore the garage could sit within 17.5 feet of the Brookview right-of-way without a variance. A variance was required as a stipulation of the lot split approval. If the Commission elects not to approve the variance, the lot split action cannot be recorded at Anoka County. HARDSHIP STATEMENT To enable lot split at the larger size, more similar to neighborhood, more options to builder. PREVIOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCES This request is within previously granted variance parameters. In 1994, the City granted a variance of 11' to allow a 19', rather than 30' setback, at 8041 Riverview Terrace. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff has no recommendation for the Commission since this is within the dimension of a previously variance. Staff Report VAR #98-25, 1027 Mississippi Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: An 8' side yard variance in conjunction an earlier request for a lot split (LS #98-01). If the requested variance is granted, the home at 1027 Mississippi will remain and will have a reduced yard dimension between the garage and the right-of-way of Brookview Drive. Location of Property: 10 27 Mississippi Street Legal Description of Property: The South 155' of Lot 1, Block 2 Brookview Second Addition Lot Size: 16,596 square feet; .38 acres Topography: Relatively flat Existing Vegetation: Urban landscape and mature trees. Existing Zoning/Platting. R-1, Single Family Residential; Brookview Second Addition Availability of Municipal Available Utilities: Vehicular Access: Brookview via Mississippi or HWY 65 Pedestrian Access: Via Mississippi Street. Engineering: Grading and drainage and utility plan for the new lot shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering staff as a requirement of the lot split. Comprehensive Planning Issues: The zoning and Comprehensive. Plan are consistent in this area. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken. 2 Staff Report VAR #98-25, 1027 Mississippi Page 3 Site Planning Issues: ADTACENT SITES NORTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family EAST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family SOUTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family WEST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family REQUEST Land Use: Single family Residences Land Use: Single family Residences Land Use: Single family Residences Land Use: Single family Residences DEVELOPMENT SITE Michele and Cully Smutzler are requested the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 2 of the Brookview Second Addition into two lots. The new parcel will face Brookview Drive NE. The Smutzler home at 1027 Mississippi will remain and will have a reduced size lot if the requested lot split is approved. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the lot split with 5 stipulations. One of those stipulations is that a variance is required. Consequently, the petitioner's request an 8' side yard variance. If granted, the home at 1027 Mississippi will remain and will have a reduced yard dimension between the garage and the right-of-way of Brookview Drive. SITE HISTORY 1946 - Brookview Second Addition 1959 - Building Permit (?) first permit on file for electrical 1963 - Building Permit for family room addition, 12' x 20' 1963 - Building Permit for detached garage, 26' x 24' 1981- Building Permit, reroof 1997 - County reconstructed sidewalk along Mississippi through property ANALYSIS The original lot was 26,776 square feet in area (0.61 acres) and its approximate dimensions were 107.24 feet by 25G feet. The lot has frontage on both Mississippi Street and Brookview Drive. It is currently described as the Southern 155' of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition. A house faces Mississippi Street. The detached garage exits onto Brookview. 3 Staff Report VAR #98-25, 1027 Mississippi Page 4 Once subdivided, the larger lot will contain the existing house; the house will meet all of the setback requirements of the R-1 District, with the exception of the garage. By current standards the garage should be 30 feet from the side street when it is within 25 feet of the common lot line with a home that faces the side street. Prior to the subdivision request this lot had 112 feet between the garage and the property line, therefore, the garage could sit within 17.5 feet of the Brookview right-of-way without a variance. Ownership and control of the lot to be developed is one advantage that the Smutzler's have in this situation. Future owners of the newly created lot can be made aware of the reduced setback by the Smutzlers before those prospective buyers make their purchase. As a result, they can plan the position of their new home accordingly. Staff believes a new home could be placed, so not to be negatively impacted by a variance to the existing garage. A variance was required as a stipulation of the lot split approval. If the Commission elects not to approve the variance, the lot split action cannot be recorded at Anoka County. HARDSHIP STATEMENT: To enable lot split at the larger size, more similar to neighborhood, more options to builder. PREVIOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCES: This request is within previously granted variance parameters. In 1994, the City granted a variance of 11' to allow a 19', rather than 30' setback, at 8041 Riverview Terrace. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff has no recommendation for the Commission since this is within the dimension of a previously variance. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PROPOSED LOT SPLIT SCALE: 7" = 20' O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET ORIGINAL PARCEL LOT 1, BLOCK Z BROOKWEW SECOND ADODTON according to the recorded Pkat thereof Anoka County, Minnesota AREA a 26.776.2 SO.FT. PROPOSED NEW PARCEL The North 95.0 feet as measured along the east and rest !Inas of LOT 1, BLOCK Z BROOIMEW SECOND ADDRION according to the recorded plot thereof. Anoka County. Minnesota. AREA a 70,180 SOFT. RESIDUE PARCEL That part of LOT 7. BLOCK 2. BROOKWEW SECOND ADDR/ON, cc..ding to the recorded plot thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, Vng South of the North 95.0 feet, as measured along the cost and west lines thereof. AREA . 16,596 SQ.iT. 1 hereby certify that thin survey . plan . or report was prepmed by me or tinder my diroet supervision and that I am a duly R*Oxtmvd land Surveyor under the Ines of the state of Minnesota Ante• ll&g Z7, /996 Reg. No.9M T o I S 8847'11"E 107.17 NI I O I 1 m o � I sSEWER MH 00 N O N Q 24.1 I "I 3 N �] N Z I1. C PROPOSED 15' PRNATE FJSDWMT Y 12.6 a f0l5 'V m H R O 31.7 191 2 STORY 12.1 STORY WOOD FRAME I1 D FRAME -22.6— 6542 F, I/ n m — — / n 72.1 h 41.7--- 2.4, ----------�-- ---------- 107_24------------- I �t.t N BB'47'15'W I / 1 I 0 0 n' rn M N North 7130 University Ave. o American Fridley. Mn. 55432 m Surveys (672)502-0579 '1r M CONC. +\� RETAMMG WALL - I 107.06 S 88'47.15'E MISSISSIPPI STREET - 'X 1N CONC. 66 S 8847'11"E 107.17 W O m o 00 N O N Q 24.1 "I N �] N Z C Y 12.6 a f0l5 'V m H R 31.7 191 2 STORY 12.1 D FRAME -22.6— n f 1027 n n m n 72.1 h North 7130 University Ave. o American Fridley. Mn. 55432 m Surveys (672)502-0579 '1r M CONC. +\� RETAMMG WALL - I 107.06 S 88'47.15'E MISSISSIPPI STREET - 'X 1N CONC. 66 J ^6 IV,n !1 :"Ia S 88.4 7' 1 1..E Ao 107.17 W ° yN N N 24.1 h CN'•� Q� 10.?-� 1 0.8 Q 24.1- 22.1- CQ 12.6 led 1011 4% .11.7 ti 1 > 2 sromy 12. WOOO rRAWE -• - —22.3-- 66 N 1 1027 121 I i f _ w I . ' IN CONC. RETAININC wALL — 1 — I 107.06 S 88047'15`E 0 "r ; ve w IVIw=lAYQVAv I Z.4-% .--_3' !/TI — EASEAIEM _ -- ------ --- 107_24------------- -1.1 N 88'47.15'W i C! N S 88'4 7'1 1 "E 107.17 W � o � 3 00 N N 24.1 O 1� v1 - H 2 -22.1- p12.6 aloo 1 1 2 $TORY 12.1 o ntA)A 22.a—N -22.S— C%./ 1027 , n ,e r n 121 Y1 + Y) I I I I I I �O 1 I I -7i IN CONC. RETAININC WALL - - 107.06 S 88'47' 15`E MISSISSIPPI STREET 66 'Ji IN CONC. .Lg,YY,L S 99 b C WISSISSINCh CA 3,SL.LbBB S 90 •LO L :. ;.. '3NO3 NI X. It Gil'OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 July 27, 1998 Cully and Michele Smutzler 1027 Mississippi Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Smutzler. 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 for setback requirements of an accessory building on July 17, 1998. 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 August 12, 1998 City Council August 24, 1998 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 572-3593. Sincerely, Paul J. attin� Planning Assistant PJT:Is C-98-137 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs PROPERTY INFORMATION: site plan required for submittal see attached Address: / 062 2 M �-5S S s , °.-1- 0 hA , N �7� �a Property Identification Number: Legal Description: Lot � Block-Tract/Addition d e Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: Reason for Variance: Lo Have you operated a pusiness 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 -X� FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contractpurchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: R. -A- M"'Le,(.0 'A -r- ADDRESS: X54 DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/ ATE. PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: 'CA1 tF,- A--� L� ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATJc E: F1 Section of City Code: FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: _ Receipt #: Received By. Application Number: f41 14z' Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: A�� �� 5'i Scheduled City Council Date: i m m �4 2q A IM 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: SQ, Is 091 91 /,FZ City Qf Fridley Land Use .Application Process .Application Dat 60 Day Window S Submit Complete Application and Materials 60 Day Agency Action Law e Planning Commission Meeting tarts Recommendation to Council 21-40 Days Application Complete 10 Day Notice Public Hearings: Variance Vacations 'Lot Splits Plats Rezonings Zoning Amendments Wetland Replacements Comprehensive Plan `Special Use Permits City Council Decision Approval or Denial 50-60 Days Approved, Action Taken Letter Tabled, 60 More Days i Oenied Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Property owners within 350 feet of 1027 Mississippi Street CASE NUMBER: VAR #98-22 APPLICANT: Cully and Michele Smutzler Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting. PURPOSE: 1. To reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; 2. To reduce the right-of-way setback for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 25 feet to 22.1 feet; To allow an existing garage to remain in its present location LOCATION OF The South 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second PROPERTY: Addition LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1027 Mississippi Street DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, August 12, 1998, 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 Paul Tatting, 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 August 5, 1998. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: July 31, 1998 T� 4� yL: u j (ec. 40 (C) o CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Property owners within 350 feet of 1027 Mississippi Street CASE NUMBER: VAR #98-22 APPLICANT. Cully and Michele Smutzler Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting. PURPOSE: 1. To reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure on a comer lot from 25 feet to 17 feet; 2. To reduce the right-of-way setback 'for an accessory structure that faces the side street of a comer lot from 25 feet to 22.1 feet; To allow an existing garage to remain in its present location LOCATION OF The South 155 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second PROPERTY. Addition LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1027 Mississippi Street DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, August 12, 1998, 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 Paul Tatting, 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 August 5, 1998. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: July 31, 1998 MSPS%PPI ST NE W Z N j -- One Family Units C1 o � _� Variance for Garage Setbacks w E OF PW - MoMW Fbmg Pa to3 S 1 NS -1-i ; , nom: 07/2211998 LEY o S-2 - I q"m tDistrict Petitioners: O w - I ocal Business Carr ed and drawn km dMal records based o C-2 -camel Business Cully & Mchele Sffm4tzler ND. 70arid zarft Map es C-3 - General 9�opping date 127/56 together with aH anemmg ardin- ® C M-Gerod Office Variance, VAR #9&22 � d ,d asaFti17)97. Qwi- UlgttIrrJusfm o M-3 - HAvy Industrial Zoning .• R-1, Single Fandly The Cdy of Fiidle)r tree taken �„�y m AA3 -Outdoor Intensive H�vy tmdpro- - I�ilmoads dde the most m4a4eba Iri ornwtion e+railable. oP Public Facilities 1027 A&sissippi St NE NE The data pesegted here is sttrject to cttartge wA� The (Sty of Frkby will not be mspms ble for 0 PoGHT-0FWAY to doresem encs o usage of tltlsdommert. J SV1/4 of OVJI/4 Sect ionl3 Date of Photography: Apr CITY OF F R I D L E Y