Loading...
VAR 06.84mry OF FRimry. SUBJECT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVG. NE. VVV FAIDLGY. MN. 551432 9612)•671-3450 VARIANCES ADDRESS / f-�C� �R�+�E C DATE`(Q Z G APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVEDDISAPPROVED DATE NO. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: REQUIRED: YES— CITY ES___CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE N0. STIPULATIONS: ....' ...... •. NAME LO_ T NO. BLOCK NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Z FEE 09'� RECEIPT No.1 93°-5- TRACT OR ADDITION bP. !4<-. LAMA 10 VARIANCE•REQUEST(S): (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., whereppl i cabl e) 71 Sections) of the City Code: List specific hardship(s) which requires the variance(s):. � ����,, �- � � �,t•-, .moi c�,,Y,,�, -� �,�..�� ;�- ��, DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS—/ S��(� ®� �J, TELEPHONE NO � V- 7-7913 E .. VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY Board members notified of meeting by list fremLer— s. date notified; and "Yes" or "ft" for plans to attend hearing. i ' Mame �_Patricia_Gabel Date'• Plan To Attend P1 RMPI . Alex Bqind. r '�'-- Jean Gerou pop 1 d B t . o 1 d Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: Name��$By Whom Dwight Srtuart. 1586. Osborn6--Road NSE Fridley, M .*.- TunV 29 Ph%qlor Wail #gtified ,Thomas Blomberg, 1544 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley MN Thomas Blomberg, 1564 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley MN George Chilstrom, 1570 Osborne Road N.E, Fridley ;1 hi.i.Ktacki= 629 Latp,Sidp' : Road N.E. Fridley Mn Delbert McLain, -1624 Osbor e o d N.E, Fridley MN .Thomag Blomberg, 7630 Lakeside Road N.E. Fridley_ -Donald Bougke, d N.E, Fridley MN -_J&Qb.grt Dickison, 765.0 T.akeyci e Road N.E. Fridley - D : A. Sampson, 7631 Brigadoon Place N.E Fridley MN Frank Biltoep7651 Brigadoon Place N.E. Fridley Terry Mc Clellan, 7673 Brigadoon Place N.E. Frid1 MN I �J Darrel Zolnowsky, 7650 Brigadoon Place N.E. Fridl MN r C 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gabel called the July 10, 1984, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Pat Gabel, Alex Barna, Jim Plemel, Jean Gerou, Donald Betzold Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Dailey, 8191 East River Road Mr. & Mrs. Mary Schmidtz, 1616 Rice Creek Road Mr. Peter Rech, 8161 Ruth Circle N.E. Mr. Guy R. Lundsten, 389 Hugo St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Gary Claggett, 440 Hugo St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Frank Hegner, 450 Hugo St. N.E. Ms. Viola Zuelke, 8161 East River Road Ms. Camilla Schultz, 371 Hugo St. N.E. Mr. Mitchell Cook, 420 Hugo St. N.E. APPROVAL OF JUNE 26, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD FROM 10 FEET TO 8 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF x 28 FOOT ADDITIONC . DRIARDALE ADDITION, THES E BEING 16 6 RICE CREEK -R-07D N.E. Request by Marvin Sc mi tz, 1616 Rice Creek Road N.E., Fridley, Mn. 55432) MOTION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPCIV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:'34 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1616 Rice Creek Road N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.2a requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area and side property lines. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 2 Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Want to add fireplace and 2 feet onto dining room for entertaining." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The neighbors to the east, 1620 Rice Creek Road, have their garage next to the common lot line and their garage is 6 feet from the line. There is 16.6 feet between the garage at 1620 Rice Creek Road and the existing house at 1616 Rice Creek Road. If the variance is approved, the distance between the garage and the addition would be 14.6 feet. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, the staff has no stipulations to recommend. Mr. Clark showed the Commission members a picture of the property, a floor plan of the proposed addition, and an aerial photo of the house as it related to the other houses on the block. He stated the petitioner's house sits forward of the neighbor's garage so there is only a small portion where the two structures are the 14.6 ft. apart. Ms. Gabel asked the petitioner, Mr. Marvin Schmidtz, to explain his proposal. Mr. Schmidtz stated one of the reasons for the addition was for cosmetic reasons. The house presently has a straight gabled roof. The 2 -foot addition will bring out the pitch of the roof in the opposite direction, and he felt the addition of the fireplace will make the house better looking from the outside. Mr. Schmidtz stated the other reason for the addition was to enlarge the dining room area. They presently have a small 9' x 10' dining room. It is difficult to entertain very many adults in it. He stated he owns an engineer- ing firm so he does have clients over and does quite a bit of entertaining. So, to make the dining room more functional, they would like to increase it to 11' x 131. Mr. Schmidtz stated the Commission members had received a copy of a letter from his neighbors, Arnold and Barbara Hahn, 1620 Rice Creek Road, stating they were in favor of this remodeling and they felt it would enhance the appearance of the home as well as the neighborhood. Mr. Clark stated that for the Appeals Comnission members' information, the fireplace was an allowable encroachment into the sideyard, so the extension of the wall for the dining room was what was necessary for approval in order to add it on. ri APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 3 Mr. Barna asked what Mr. Schmidtz planned to do with the wall adjacent to the neighbor's garage. Would there by any windows? Mr. Schmidtz stated there would be no windows on the garage side, but he would probably have three 6 ft. windows on the side facing their back yard. Ms. Gerou asked if there was a step up into the dining room from the living room. Mr. Schmidtz stated there was so there was no way the dining room table could be extended into the living room. MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE THE LETTER DATED JULY 3, 1984, FROM ARNOLD & BETTY HAHN, 1620 RICE CREEK ROAD N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NOTION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC'HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:43 P.M. Mr. Barna stated that in looking at the aerial photo and in driving around the neighborhood,he found that quite a few houses in that area are situated differently on the lots. He stated it was hard to visualize the additional 2 ft. by driving by, but it did not seem to him that visually the 2 ft. was going to add that much. As Mr. Schmidtz had stated, the change in the roof line will probably improve the look of the house. Ms. Gerou stated she could understand the hardship of a small dining room, especially with the step where they cannot extend into another area of the house. She would be in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Betzold stated he thought the distance between the buildings was going to be maintained. The code tries to strive for the 15 ft. difference, and here there was going to be 14.6 ft. which he believed was in the spirit of the code. It did not seem forseeable that the neighbors would be requesting a variance to extend their garage since they already have a two -car garage, so there did not look like there would be any further encroachment in the future into this space. He saw no difficulty in granting this variance. Mr. Plemel stated that since there was no neighborhood objection, he would be in favor of granting the variance. MOTION BY MR. PLEMEL, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO -REDUCE THE SIDE YARD FROM 10 FEET TO 8 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 X 28 FOOT ADDITION ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BRIARDALE ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1616 RICE CREEK ROAD N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. U APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 4 2. REQUEST FOR V, Ham Lake, Mn. 55303 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE'FRI es, inc., Dy uon Lnouinara, CODE TO D-_ GARAGE—IN TREET ntral Avenue N.E., MOTION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY AR. BARNA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:48 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 441 Hugo Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.09.7.D6, requires a minimum fifteen foot wide screening strip to provide for a physical separation between multiple dwelling district and any other residential district. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide open areas adjacent to lot lines and to separate parking with landscaped areas. Section 205.09.3D.1 requires a front yard setback of not less than 35 feet for all structures. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way and also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the building "line of sight" encroach- ment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Hardship is because of linear shape of lots; parking must be on one side because of this." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This project consists of a seven -unit townhouse on land zoned R-3, and adjoining parking on land zoned R-3 (approximately 20 feet) and land zoned R-1 (approximately 50 feet). In conjunction with this application, a special use permit has been applied for to place parking for the town- houses on the fifty -foot R-1 portion of the site. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 5 Between the westerly portion of the parking lot zoned R-3 and adjacent R-2 zone, a fifteen foot buffer is required; five feet is provided. Between the easterly portion of the parking lot zoned R-1 and the adja- cent R-1 zone, a ten foot buffer is required, as per special use permit requirements; five feet is provided. An additional variance in the placement of a garage which encroaches 9.4 feet into the required front yard. Mr. Clark stated the Commission has had other variance requests on this same property. The most recent request was in 1979 for an extension of a 1978 variance very similar to this variance. Since more than a year has past since the last extension, it became null and void. There is now a different petitioner with a different plan, but the same property. Mr. Clark stated the propertyis located in the northeast quadrant of East River Road and Hugo St. All but the easterly 50 ft. is zoned R-3. That is where the 7 -unit multiple dwelling and a small amount of parking will go. The two 25 ft. lots adjacent and east are going to be considered for a special use permit for the garage to be used with the multiple dwelling. The property to the east on Hugo is single family dwellings. The property to the north on Ironton has a multiple dwelling and adjacent to that is a four -unit building which would lie directly north of this proposed dwelling. While the properties are zoned R-2, they are being used as R-3 properties because when they were constructed, they were allowed to build R-3 complexes in R-2 zoning with different densities. Mr. Clark stated the approval of the variances in 1975 was for a 10 -unit building, so this proposal is for a substantially smaller building as far as the number of units. It is proposed to be'built in a townhouse design. The petitioner at some time may plat this into townhouses. Mr. Clark stated that if the Commission approves this request, he would recommend the following stipulations: 1. A drainage plan be submitted to the Engineering Dept. 2. A-1 andscaping plan be submitted for review. 3. In 1978 and 1979 the petitioner was asked to grant a 172 ft. easement along East River Road for possible widening. Ms. Gabel asked the petitioner, Mr. Chouinard, to explain his proposal. Mr. Chouinard stated the proposal was to put a 7 -unit building on the lot. To make everything fit, they have to put some garages closer to the lot line than what the code allows. They are asking for a reduction of the green areas from 15 ft. to 5 ft. on the side yard on the property zoned R-3 and from 10 ft. to 5 ft. on the rear and side yards on the R-1 portion. Ms. Gabel asked if the petitioner planned to sell the units or rent them. Mr. Chouinard stated it would depend on the economics. They would like to build with the possibility of selling the units in the future. At first, these will be rental units. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 6 , Ms. Gabel asked if anyone in the audience wanted to make any comments regarding these variance requests. Mr. Leonard Dailey, 8191 East River Road, stated he owned the 5 -unit apartment building facing East River Road. He stated he was not opposed to the construc- tion of a 7 -unit dwelling. His concern was regarding the drainage so the water runloff was adequately handled. Mr. Frank Hegner, 450 Hugo St., stated he lived right across the street from this property. He stated he felt the biggest problem was parking. Most families will have two cars and not everyone is going to put one car in the garage and one in the stall. Even if they did, that is still 14 cars. When friends come over, they are going to be parking on both sides of Hugo. When that happens, there will be no room for emergency vehicles to come through. He also did not want people parking in front of his house. There would also not be any room for snowmobiles, campers, boats, etc., that people always own. Mr. Hegner stated another concern was where the children are going to play. The children are probably going to go out into the street. Mr. Hegner stated he was not complaining about putting something on that property. He felt something should be built there, but the idea of trying to squeeze a 10 - unit, then an 8 -unit, and now a 7 -unit building onto that property was what the neighborhood was upset about. He would be in favor of a smaller complex. Mr. Hegner stated they are taxpayers and they want to keep this area nice. If a building like this is put up, and it is not taken care of, it is going to bring down all the property values in their area. Mr. Guy Lundsten, 389 Hugo St., stated he was located east of the property. He stated that the garages would be about 13 ft. from his house. If it catches fire, his house would be gone. He stated he works for the Fridley Fire Dept., and he can speak for what Mr. Hegner stated about the emergency vehicles not being able to get through with parking on both sides of Hugo. There are times when they have come down that road and had to back out because they could not get through, and that was with just the regular homeowners. He would agree that a smaller complex, such as a 4-plex, would be better and would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Gary Claggett, 440 Hugo St., stated he was against this proposal, because there is too much traffic now from the cars of people already living here and their visitors. He was also concerned about where the children would play besides in the street. Ms. Camilla Schultz, 371 Hugo St., stated Hugo Street is very narrow. If someone is parked on the opposite side of a driveway, it is very difficult to pull out. When two cars are parked on either side, it is very difficult to squeeze through. It was just not feasible to have any more traffic going down Hugo St. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Clark what the street width was for Hugo. Mr. Clark stated it was a 26 ft. wide street. APPEALS COP'U SSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 7 Mr. Allen Mattson stated he was a partner in MCCK Properties, Inc. He stated they do not need any variances to build a 7 -unit apartment building. They are trying to help the neighborhood by building a 7 -unit townhouse type building where there will be homeowners. If they build an apartment building, it will be renters with the same amount of people, cars, and children. Mr. Leonard Dailey stated his picture window looks out onto this property, and he would much rather see a 7 -unit townhouse building put up which will be individually owned than an apartment building. He stated he owns a 5 -unit apartment building, and he knows what it is like to try to control renters, and it is not easy. As far as parking, even though he has adequate parking in front of his building, people still park over on Ironton St. Ms. Gabel stated she thought this was true. They can have a little more controlled parking with a 7 -unit townhouse dwelling like what is being proposed and still have parking in the street, or they can have some type of apartment building with no garages and just the required amount of parking required by city code, and there would still be parking in the street. That was a reality the neighbor- hood would have to deal with. Ms. Gabel stated she felt that if Hugo St. is only 26 ft. wide and if there are problems with emergency vehicles going down this street, then there probably needs to be a "no parking" ban on one side of the street, and the City Council should take a look at this. Mr. Mitchell Cook, 420 Hugo St., stated that if they could get "no parking" on the north side of Hugo, that would make a lot of sense. He stated something else to take into consideration is that Hugo is the access to East River Road from Ruth Circle and the neighborhood behind it. He stated he was not concerned about the apartment building, but they want it to be a nice building, and they really do not want to see that amount of people in that area. Their main concern is the heavy traffic already on the street. There is a park la blocks away, and the children have to walk in the street to get to the park, creating a dangerous situation to the children with even more cars on the street. Mr. Barna agreed that Hugo St. was a very narrow street, but he did not think the 7 additional units would really generate that much of a problem if the parking could be stopped on the north side of the street. Mr. Barna asked the property owners most directly affected by this development if they definitely objected to this development or if they did not object to this development but would like to see certain things changed. Mr. Hegner asked if they could have a 10 -minute break to talk it over and come to a decision. Chairperson Gabel declared a 10 -minute recess. Ms. Gabel asked if the homeowners had come to a decision. Mr. Frank Hegner stated that as it stands right now, they would vote against this development. They would like to see the development reduced from 7 units APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 8 to 6 townhouse units, and the garages adjacent to Mr. Lundsten, 389 Hugo St., be increased from the 5 ft. back to the 10 ft. Mr. Plemel suggested that a stipulation could be to have a fire wall in the garages along the property line. Mr. Allen M6ttson stated he could understand the neighbor's point of view for wanting 6 units. He stated he also hoped the neighbors could understand the petitioners' point of view,and that with the economics, they have to go with a 7 -unit apartment building or a 7 -unit townhouse building. It was not feasible for them to go with a 6 -unit building. He stated he felt they were trying to do the best thing for the City of Fridley and for the people in this area. One homeowner stated he did not want a 7 -unit apartment building because it is big and ugly. The neighborhood would be much better off with townhouses where they can be sold to individual owners. MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. PLEMEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M. Mr. Plemel stated he felt a lot of the objections expressed by the neighbors were valid, but he felt the same conditions would exist whether it was a townhouse - type building or an apartment building. He stated it appeared that the developers were trying to do a good job. He would be in favor of the variances with the added stipulation that a fire wall be put in the back of the garages. Ms. Gerou stated that as long as the petitioners can build, whether it was a 7 - unit apartment building or a 7 -unit townhouse building, she would rather see the townhouse building for the benefit of the neighborhood. She would be in favor of the variances with the following stipulations: 1. drainage plan 2. landscaping plan 3. 1711-2 ft. easement along East River Road 4. fire wall in back wall of garages 5. "no parking" ban on north side of Hugo St. 6. approval of special use permit by Planning Commission Mr. Barna stated that he lives in this area and he looks at this property every day. Knowing definitely that townhouses, especially the way they are being built today, look much better than apartment buildings, he would rather see the townhouses. He realized that economics would not allow six units. In the past, the Commission reluctantly went along with 10 units on this property. He stated that even though there is neighborhood opposition, he would vote in favor of the variances because he felt this was the best development for the neighborhood. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1984 PAGE 9 Mr. Betzold stated the neighbors have raised some valid objections. He thought they were at a particular point where that property is going to remain zoned as it is. The petitioners are determined to develop the property; and if the variances are denied, they are prepared to go ahead with some plans that may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. He would hope that the developers would continue to work with the neighbors, even though that was not required. He saw no alternative at this point but to approve the variances, and he would support the stipulations mentioned. Ms. Gabel stated she was not real comfortable with this either. She remembered when different proposals have come before them for this property, and this was by far the best proposal. She stated.there was no doubt in her mind that this piece of land was going to be developed. She felt the Commission was in the position to add some stipulations and some controls to these variances. Under those circumstances, she would be in favor of approving the variances. MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER- 20 , OF 777D FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A PLANTING STRIP FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET ON THE SIDE YARD ON THE PROPERTY ZONED R-3 (MULTIPLE DWELLINGS), AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A PLANTING STRIP FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET ON THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS, AND REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 25.6 FEET ON LOTS 78 AND 79, BLOCK A, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, TO ALLOW R-1 ZONING (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO BE USED FOR A PARKING LOT AND GARAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SEVEN - UNIT MULTIPLE DWELLING AT 441 HUGO STREET N.E., WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THE UNITS BE CONSTRUCTED OF A TOWNHOUSE DESIGN 2. A DRAINAGE PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY#S ENGINEERING DEPT. 3. AN APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN 4. A 174F FT. EASEMENT ALXG EAST RIVER ROAD 5. A FIRE WALL ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE GARAGES 6. VARIANCES CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER A "NO PARKING" REQUIREMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 400 BLOCK OF HUGO STREET IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOa70N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel stated the special use permit would be heard by the Planning Commission on July 18, and then both the variances and the special use permit would go before the City'Council on August 6. a4t'P LS t t ! SION M INS JULY 10 1984 PAGE .10 t= a- _ OIJRNMENT: 'i ..E AM, BY M BETZow,• sgcwDSD Br° AIS. GERM, TO AwounV TXS 1VSBT.rnG. UPON A !Wfti A4 V"VG AYE, CffArJ=RSQN GABBL DECLARED TBE JULY 20, 29$4, ..>`. APPMS ;CoMtW.TCN`` f7NG ADJOMWED AT 9:25 F.M. r ttes ..ectfu11 .. # ed x m9—LA --IV_& Y— v4cj A --I. 7—LA—..o .R cording Sepretary Item #1, July 24, 1984 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1586 Osborne Road N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.2c.1, requires a side yard width on a street side of a corner lot to be not less than 17 1/2 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. Section 205.07.3D.3, requires a rear yard depth of not less then 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Due to location and size of present house in relationship to location and size of lot, variances are necessary to allow for expanding." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This is a corner lot with the frontage on both streets being within 10 percent and therefore the owner has the option of choosing which street he wants to use for his front street. The petitioner has decided to use Osborne Road as his front street with Lakeside Road as the side street. The petitioner wants to add 22 feet onto the east Side of his existing house causing the side yard to be reduced to 16.5 feet.' He would like to have the new south wall be an extension of his recent second level expansion which would reduce the distance from his addition to the south line down to 15 feet (25 feet required). The new house to the south is in excess of 31 feet from the common lot line. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, there would be 46 feet between the structures, and the staff has no suggested stipulations. CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Corrected NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24 84 in regard to the following matter: * Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 16.5 feet, and the rear yard setback from 28.5 feet to 15 feet, to allow the construction of a 22 foot x 24 foot addition, and a 24 foot x 24 foot attached garage with a 6 foot foyer on Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, the same being 1586 Osborne Road, N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432. 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. *Please note this item was to be heard on July 10, 1984 but dde to an error in public notice it will be continued to July 24, 1984 'PIRA quoij s,aogggTau aqj olut luomgorojoua Og8is 30 auZT,, aTI aonpai ol pup eCIl1igtsln ot3jell 30 agasop aag8iq r uzrlulrm o:j si quamaiinbai sigi Aq paA,zas asodand 3TTgna •7993 ZIT -LI usgI ssaT jou aq oq DoT aauaoo r Jo apes 3aaaas is uo glpTm pavA apls r sasinbai `T'oZ'Q£'LO'SOZ uot1309 INSF932IIflbaR Ag DAMS SSOcMd OI'Igfld *V •S 'N prop auaogs0 98ST IWcIH 133VSS SAIIV29ISINBdQV :ljodag 3IrjS aAijrijsiuzmpV aqj pra.z Tagvo uosaadaTrg3 'K 'd ML IV MO ONIUVHH OIZgfla HHS Q329V ma 'iagvg NOsuaci 9IVHO `HAV ONISOA 'I'IV `SSOA HOIOA V NOdfl 'ONIUVHH MUM SHS NHaO OZ `VN2IVg 'UK a QSQNOOSS `f1029HO *%q Ag 140I10H (W795 MR `AaTPTIa "H 'N Pro29 auzogso 98ST `javnjS •r 3ggTma Aq isanbag) 'S •N QV029 3NW9S0 989T ONISg 34VS SHS NOISIQQV SOISTAVI XHVd HXYI ORMIS Z XOO'IE1 T 107 NO 29SA03 5003 9 V HIIM 3OV2 W QSHOVIIV JA03 W Ag 5003 17Z V QNV NOISIQQV 5003 +lZ Ag 1003 ZZ V 30 MOI DMUSNOO HHS MO'I'IV OZ SSSS ST OS 9'8Z NO H3 ?IOVgSHS CrdVA UVH2I SHI CNV 121H3 9'9T OS ISH3 S' LT NOIM ?DV913S (MVA SONS HHI MUM 01 `SQOO AIIO AS'IQIUd HHS 30 SOZ gHSdVHO 01 SNVf1SHfla HONVIUVA V jf6A tISgf-jtg—X *T '7117sacKINVNl1 QHIUM NOIIOW HHI (M IOHa 'IHgVJ NOS29Hd29IVHO `3AV ONIIOA 'I'IV `HIDA 3OIOA V NOdII 'NSISI2IM SV SUMIN NOISSDROO SZV3aaV "7861 T ` 01 2LW HHI SA0UacIV 01 `!102930 '%i AN QSQNOOSS ` VNIIVg "M bS UNION : SSSRNIJd NOISSINKOD SIVSaaV V861 OT AW 30 7VA02HdV •3 •N pEog auaogs0 98ST 12jrnjS 'f iggTma 'saw Pur ';� AaTP?za JO AIIO `NIPTO Tazira :Juasald siaglo auoN : auasgV siagmaW pToz1ag pTruoQ `ru.Irg xaTV 'noaaO urar °Tamara MU `TagrO jra :juasaaa saagmaN TWO 'I'IO2i 'm •d 0£: L Ir iapio of Suz:laam uolsslmmoO sTraddV °+7861 `*!Z ATnf aql POITBo Tagvq uosaadairgO V86T ` YZ AIU `ONIIHHI NOISSINHOD S'IVHadV AH'I(MU 30 Alio :293Q290 0I TWO APPEALS CONNISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1984 PAGE 2 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 required. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Due to location and size of present house in relationship,to location and size of lot, variances are necessary to allow for expanding." C. ADMISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This is a corner lot with the frontage on both streets being within 10 percent and therefore the owner has the option of choosing which street he wants to use for his front street. The petitioner has decided to use Osborne Road as his front street with Lakeside Road as the side street. The petitioner wants to add 22 feet onto the east side of his existing house causing the side yard to be reduced to 16.5 feet. He would like to have the new south wall be an extension of his recent second level expansion which would reduce the distance from his addition to the south line down to 15 feet (25 feet required). The new house to the south is in excess of 31 feet from the common lot line. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, there would be 46 feet between the structures, and the staff has no suggested stipulations. Mr. Clark presented an aerial photo of the area and a picture of the site taken from Lakeside Road. He stated these variances are the result of a lot split approved about a year ago. He stated, at that time, the City requested some bikeway/walkway ease- ments which have been given. Mr. Clark stated the petitioner has improved the looks of the home and added a second story and now wants to expand the floor area to the east and con- struct an attached garage to the west. He stated it is a logical way to expand the existing building and would be difficult to expand in other dir- ections because of the roof line. Mr. Stuart stated because of the location of the house on the lot and the roof structure, he can only expand off the ends to the east or west. Ms. Gabel asked how many bedrooms are presently in the home and Mr. Stuart stated just one. Ms. Gabel asked if he had just completed some work on the home and his time frame for construction. W. Stuart stated he was doing the work himself and hopes to have it done this fall. 1k 4 1 a) G L L N b a) -4 .uC •,4 -tdw � An •rl TJ G • G O O L L )r N a) L u' H 00 w •u M w a) 'u M aJ •r) M O td Cd .0 W .0 Cd v u W N • .4 .4 3 w u a. L .0 L H L 'u •4 -C L •E r. 0 u U w cd O O L M a) cd x b L M L C� 3 `C7 a o ^n w o 3 •v CA o "�,• L O 3 G ccdd ^ a 0 x G O .0 (U 0 L w O a) x G [x•+ pO; hF+ w ,C L L a) X X. d L "1 Hou co •-+ H ^ •1 C 3 a) w Cd W A• 4 A •u O O a) L •r1 M •� Cd W W a) O .0 L L .0 L L G a. O H 0pXoy ii cd O V O cd cd M a) 'u IHJ x �m�• w L O O a 0 3 L w cuVAU M L M -H Oa WW `� C L G H G 4 a) F a) a) M a. a) G •r+ o w A4 F W M M to a O 'u •C a) L 04 "a a N G •r) a) 'u G -4G cd M a 44 W w P4 z 0 L w O M a) .0 a) @ O ra L •rl cd M a) 00 A W .4 Cd M •C a) C M o 0 0 O .0 U L M Q) L a U3 O H NA4 H ed .0 G • .0 O V bo 'u cd O o w O • 4 C D. o cr ra a) L a) L L cd L L •C u Cd M L .0 td .0 L M q Aa .T. w a O o L 0 0 • H G •rl L a) G w O O u a) w O G a , H w 3 0 .c -4 L O L w O a) L •14 .0 M 'u 4 u 0 >% r4 4J CA E-1 A T4 x 9 O W T w •CA W O F w %O G 4) O u v v m 4 4 41 Q 00 � •n a) O. c C L O a) W V] a = ra 9 L y O W O •A= 4 `� L O G (1)o M a) o '1:7 S �i Ln DHH+ [i] r1 O v w 41 .G G ,C o w 44 O cd M a� 'u 'u w o a. a $00 a r♦ O o b0 O G b0 E G •ra L o •rt L a U W ey' L G O a) .c u a) • x H a) G 41 w u a) G U) v H N w U d U N z W ,C G O L 3 L •r+ •r) L b 0 L b0 u b0 G o v' G x M 10 rn (L) .0 .a cd (A cd .a o Q) M .0 •C .0 �o N o>4 d W G •rt 'u D 00 v L G 00 •rt 'u H 7a •rl a) L m -A O Cd cd X •ra o L L H d a1 w to a 3 to G xo 44 G r4 "4 Cd cd ai w uv O L +:G o w (1) a) r4a)cdcd M 14>,41om N M L cd to 3u td cwd b0 P44 L O M 't7 N G () •rl a) ::) O >> at w a) M L L a) p4 W P.. w •rt •r) al H M .0 •H L -4 G .o 3 L 8 G -4 O 'G b ••4 a) Cd a) H d a a. M L u td o 4+ td v ,C v G O W H N cd Cd A 'o 10 w G u G 0 0 4+ G a) CL a) (30 a) L � cd td Nw .G � O a v w H u .G G u O � H OO C L .0F V cd 'u -A a) o A 'O O U 'u •r/ M cd a) Cd a) L •R M •rl •rt G PQ4 L ,C w wo Lnco b X. G L W •C V M G M ',a+ w Cd M 'u Cd L M "4 a) O H -H QLD a) U H u � al Q) N M w M -A L G w L td Ga) Phi [s� O M O •H 3 w td M H 3 u >, M ,C to O O L •) rr1 z A4 Ln O H •C •rl a) ,C -H Cd O Cd •r) a) G u .'�+ d (1) •C •C a) ,C a) O a) a) L .0 a. (A 'u r4 A O U W H L14 .-+ .0 W -4 0 M G -H G A .G L L H d .0 H G 0) L to A N o H .4 td w Cd w L L () al U L a) a) al w L a) = M O -4 •� Ucz L •H •� d O x co qEG� C�.+ •' 7 AW i4 �-. M 4J •r G o � • � .UC 'O 'u•� O. L � w .0 cz W� H z 14 w Ai 4J Cl. •H :jM y0 t CL a. �Ht Cd O M L L [ O b0 w cd Cd L L O H L a) O> @ x td U w O • 9 w >+ 'u w Cd G L a) M L a) td = M L a) r4 CO L al v o x G U 94 W o L G o M M a. ld O •r� 0 w V) cd 3 t� cd � r-1 a) 4 L >% 9 'u w O L a) Fq-I Cn •r♦ L o w C 7 N w w {a cd 44 .0 L ai O a) cd w � O) N •*� � 6 R 4 L as ► � 't N 'G N 'u w � -4 •44 .0 U -0 � d o 41 w •ri 0 •• 10) M .c cd L .n N m � 4J ^C -A ,C a) 0) d) 10 I� w �a7 £F�H4� G A a0ia0 b a) �•w 'o 4) r4 W W H O•m ^ w L G 't7 G X L L L L 4J a) w Cd v 4) °00 Mud >Ja) u M ° a� -H CO o CO w w o k d4°' L ° Jo k M i 3LcR w� a) L C 0 -A L M M Cd M Cd L U cd Cd L M "4 rn Cd N A a co 'u M 0 w [i] to L O CO L CO U L a) L a) M a) .a a) •r, M td Fy 8 � � � M v u o0 y Ll. V O M td M G •r) M ,C M M .0 •u 'u = •r) L Gto G a) to a) 4 • G L .0 L r44 w O L N L H G G 'Jt H.0 O u a) •rl d u ra •o v O o L o a) L Cd O -C , 4 L M O a) a) •cr��� w y+ � � O H to U -4 .0 r L � A WW� N a. Cd o w L a) 4J o a) L a) C7 G a) a) 0 H O w +O•) O L o0 w U W O N .4 •n co M V L O a) *a 0 L M z d ,a 'u r4 G r4 a) a) 3 a ) e O 'Zi `moi V) E-1 a AL G7 O N rn PA r.4 .0 ,C H -le PW 0 .O C�OiL L e cd O) ^3 O H z 4J -r4 1! 0) m 41 O Ma) w Mu N • O 0 • ca al G td d) O w tom/ u L a) td O 44 u O O O 4 1+ 4++ M tU .0 •rl .0 w C C 0 ca ,C u • L L M fit i APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1984 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MTTON BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE JULY 24, 1984, APPEALS COMMIISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Recording Secretary City of 'Fridley AGENDA APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY,, JULY 249 1984 7:30 P.M. CALL -TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 10, 1984 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 17.5 FEET TO 16.5 FEET. AND THE REAR YARD FOYER—ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, SRRING LAKE PARK LAKESIDE ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1586 OSBORNE ROAD, N.E. (Re uest by Dwight J. Stuart, 1586 Osborne Road N.E., Fridley, MN 55432) 2. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT : _nll!" CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY KURTH SURVEYING, INC. 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 65421 789.8788 1 /Ii y CMTIFII THAT THIA AYRVtT. FLAN. OR RtFORT MAA FRtFARZO OV Mt CO W401M Mr OIRSCT SUPIMIAION AND THAT 1 AM A D11Lr RAOIATAIIAO LAND AYRI/STOR HNDAR THU LAMA OF THA ATATS OF MINNSAOTA. DATE -SOmLt (Ift .1983 SCALE V= 30 MINNE REGISTRATION NO. 5332 O=IRON MONUMENT 9:90. I.oc- 6� �c 14 3 +• c PLOCc Or SD ' I Op I �• �. b�Tg `T c� o �V 3 � O 1, •• � off• l• •: ",�": 'T'�Q Soc��-lam �OPP r 1 Oa'o -�ee•i o� O 1..0� 1 31oa1� Z 1 s'PQ t�lC-� I..A1GL m 1�,Zao°1 00 49 0 9 2�e ao.o G 1 1� r l` '* 158GPJ 0 JofI I ?' 1710 CPP se -•� -- `QQ �� PAtztt LAKl�31DL axe & P •� -4 h e- _J. Qcrea . an rj ui h � Q O FOl1W �ATIoN � Q �/ vi 9AON►-Y - - - - N O 1(\ � 1 23.33 \ 00 � OQj T • o P.P. • lZ 88��9'S3"�! 131:4 2-y 'PLK 57 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY KURTH SURVEYING, INC. 4W2 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 66421 786-97110 1 NO V �TN•Y TUAT TNI! BHIWBY. PLAN. OR "FORT WAN "WP^MW OY M< M NNOBR UY 01ONCT WrBRVIBION AND THAT 1 AM A ONLY A I§T " LANG BNR111Yow LINO= TNB LAMS OF TUB STATS OF YINNfODTA. DATE - ID _ t' q$: 10 SCALE 1' 30 MINNE REGISTRATION NO. 5332 O=IRON MONUMENT .. FAD. Loc.. 6� 1c !o3 .. ?L. = 'P•..z o� SP�Q1Ke% Lkwk PARK IAKL -4 t O Lt tvIy� ' � O �3 0 bou .` 0 � IoS,Z3s23�,`1 J•� FOLD N 1 o PP 1 1 � LLL (4 1 I r- O - 1 JIB m 00 1 /' .9 1 0 - t 1 IJ � is 1-S-s-pOp �1 1, 1 i J1 01v s - kv- ♦ 9 9.31 1,= _ r� :. 5' I - .z - `aQ ul is �u.o�Ncs s� d� uj J 3.33 1 ;1Q O FOOWDATIo14 a � 1 2'.•33 ♦ 06 � Q Y ♦v � e.5 Ali O P.P. �(100� S �p� . 99.8-1A•L�- � . • K B8"S9'S3"�K 33 v'a rcs.s. %o4,0 AeeA o-rc %,-04- 1 ,31oa1v� 'L 1 5'M k*1CN LA1GL ?AQK LAx�StDL , 0� •••$•• - LOQ 11'aloekZ S I�RtKCy WKL 1� PAt2t, LAxt-7c_ 3 %bZ 3o�kk 104.0 �Se�k �iK Zy 'Pft 57 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Corrected NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING e is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers e Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24 $ wing matter: * City of Fridley at 6431 University 4 in regard to the Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 16.5 feet, and the rear yard setback from 28.5 feet to 15 feet, to allow the construction of a 22 foot x 24 foot addition, and a 24 foot x 24 foot attached garage with a 6 foot foyer on Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, the same being 1586 Osborne Road, N.E. Fridlley, Mn 55432. 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. *Please note this item was to be heard on July 10, 1984 but dde to an error in public notice it will be continued to July 24, 1984 Item #1, July 24, 1984 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1586 Osborne Road N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.2c.1, requires a side yard width on a street side of a corner lot to be not less than 17 1/2 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. Section 205.07.3D.3, requires a rear yard depth of not less then 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Due to location and size of present house in relationship to location and size of lot, variances are necessary to allow for expanding." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This is a corner lot with the frontage on both streets being within 10 percent and therefore the owner has the option of choosing which street he wants to use for his front street. The petitioner has decided to use Osborne Road as his front street with Lakeside Road as the side street. The petitioner wants to add 22 feet onto the east side of his existing house causing the side yard to be reduced to 16.5 feet. He would like to have the new south wall be an extension of his recent second level expansion which would reduce the distance from his addition to the south line down to 15 feet (25 feet required). The new house to the south is in excess of 31 feet from the common lot line. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, there would be 46 feet between the structures, and the staff has no suggested stipulations. Item #1, July 24, 1984 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1586 Osborne Road N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.2e.1, requires a side yard width on a street side of a corner lot to be not less than 17 1/2 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. Section 205.07.3D.3, requires a rear yard depth of not less then 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Due to location and size of present house in relationship to location and size of lot, variances are necessary to allow for expanding." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This is a corner lot with the frontage on both streets being within 10 percent and therefore the owner has the option of choosing which street he wants to use for his front street. The petitioner has decided to use Osborne Road as his front street with Lakeside Road as the side street. The petitioner wants to add 22 feet onto the east side of his existing house causing the side yard to be reduced to 16.5 feet. He would like to have the new south wall be an extension of his recent second level expansion which would reduce the distance from his addition to the south line down to 15 feet (25 feet required). The new house to the south is in excess of 31 feet from the common lot line. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, there would be 46 feet between the structures, and the staff has no suggested stipulations. CITY OF FRIDLEY, COMMISSION APPLICATION r MINNESOTA REVIEW lmp-- I iNwnber �-Rev page Approved by g ,, AO AC 8 t PILE COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST �jE'�� ¢ ��/`�'V RETURN TO PLANNING our JIM gj- MIKE rrel Mark Ek Clvde 4ohn �.au - �alcay�aic - I� do 17. C2g. S ,�RV {{,, J �OV11U1 IAV pbF „ •. '� ..1 ftsl 9S/. .. . -rd 9:r • � � arr �, Did .s of F _ Jf7/ ft�l 3 t Flo `� SSI /� ' erre At yrs/ fl q (p 1�'�l �7/� Z�ii►' �y.r �1a ♦ ;�'I r L /VS/ A f4i SG 7 + Bull3� Lzr Lou L``` �5ZS4�r S2�L O� a.s .w s`► r y •�� to��n� cn3 ,moi •moi bpotw,--, _� / `'TAI� "y'�#��.�°.� s�6, ��• f, sir -� �� m 3 kv d'7 9 N,Yds � �s .6_0 ��iQueVG+„•�� aao IMH s3i:)van»v I SNOdS: a ION SI Al MUdafid 3: N3V333a 101 SI J.V:MdaI S1H1 I: JNIU3JJr S33U.40 3H1 Ni tiv3ddv AMI 0+1 d71MOD v SI SIH! S. n."-,, : r, • 1 ` r ' STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF FRIDLEY A APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS 668467 In the Matter of variance to reduce the side yard and rear yard for a 22' x 24' addition and a garage VARIANCE 24'x24' attached. at 1586 Osborne Road N.E. Dwight J. Stuart , Owner The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on on the 24th day of 19-R4 , on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fri- ey s oning Ordi ance, for the following described property: Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: See Appeals Commission minutes of July 24, 1984 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) ss. CITY OF FRIDLEY ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Sidney C. Inman, City Clerk for the City of Friley 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 hve 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,81 Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the /gid day of yy/ e -A eA 19 DRAFTED BY: op.n�.ys tiw City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SIDNEY C. -M-1AN, CITY LEz Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval andrshai;l be` considered void if not used within that period. k CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: `Chairperson Gabel called the July 24, 1984, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Pat Gabel, Jim Plemel, Jean Gerou, Alex Barna, Donald Betzold Members Absent: '"None Others Present:, Darrel Clark, City of Fridley ^Ir. and Mrs. Dwight J. Stuart, 1586 Osborne Road N. E. APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 1984, APPEALS_CONMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY M. BARNA, SECONDED BY NS. GEROU, TO APPROVE THE JULY 10, 1984, APPEALS COMhIISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE.VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDIEY CITY CODE, FOOT FOYER ON LOT 1. BLOCK 2. SPRING LAKE PARK LAKESIDE ADDITION THE SAME BEING 1586 OSBORNE ROAD, N. E. (Request by Dwight J. Stuart, 1586 Osborne Road N. E., Fridley, MN 55432) MOTION B�.,.M.,.GEROU, SECONDED BY M. BARNA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P. M. Chairperson Gabel read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1586 Osborne Road N. E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3D.2c.1, requires a side yard width on a street side of a corner lot to be not less than 17-1/2 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. APPEALS CONKSSION MEETING, JULY 24_1984 PAGE 2 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 required.._.._ Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide'rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Due to location and size of present house in relationship to location and size of lot, variances are necessary to allow for expanding." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This is a corner lot with the frontage on both streets being within 10 percent and therefore the owner has the option of choosing which street he wants to use for his front street. The petitioner has decided to use Osborne Road as his front street with Lakeside Road as the side street. The petitioner wants to add 22 feet onto the east side of his existing house causing the side yard to be reduced to 16.5 feet. He would like to have the new south wall be an extension of his recent second level expansion which would reduce the distance from his addition to the south line down to 15 feet (25 feet required). The new house to the south is in excess of 31 feet from the common lot line. Therefore, if the Board approves this request, there would be 46 feet between the structures, and the staff has no suggested °stipulations. M. Clark presented an aerial photo of the area and a picture of the site taken from Lakeside Road. He stated these variances are the result of a lot split approved about a year ago. He stated, at that time, the City requested some bikeway/walkway ease- ments which have been given. lir. Clark stated the petitioner has improved the looks of the home and added a second story and now wants to expand the floor area to the east and con- struct an attached garage to the west. He stated it is a logical way to expand the -existing building and would be difficult to expand in other dir- ections because of the roof line. W. Stuart stated because of the location of the house on the lot and the roof structure, he can only expand off the ends to the east or west. Ms. Gabel asked how many bedrooms are presently in the home and Mr. Stuart stated just one. - Ms. Gabel asked if he had just completedsome work on the home and his time frame for construction. W. Stuart stated he was doing the work himself and hopes to have it done this fall. APF' ,LS COMaSSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1984 PAGE 3 d W, Plemel asked Mr. Stuart if he had any plans. Mr. Stuart stated he had t rcagh plans, but nothing finalized. K-. Gabel asked Mr. Stuart if he had talked with his neighbors about this p-oposal. Mr. Stuart stated his neighbors had no objections and he had showed one neighbor just how far the addition would extend. W. Stuart stated his proposal is to add a living room and bedroom to the east of the house and a six foot foyer leading to the garage on the west side. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Stuart if he foresaw adding these rooms at the time he made the other improvements and if, at that time, he could have expanded in another direction. Mr. Stuart stated his improvements didn't change the roof line so it wouldn't have been possible to expand in any other direction than what he is now requesting. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding these requested variances. MOTION BY MR. PLEMEL, SECONDED BY M. BARNA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P. M. Ms. Gabel stated, as far as the hardship, it isn't very well defined. She stated because of the way the house is situated on the lot and the roof line, it is necessary to expand in this direction. She felt the size should also be taken into consideration. Mr. Plemel stated because of the distance of the house to the south, he would have no objection. M. Gerou stated she felt there was a hardship because of the position of the house on the lot and the size of the house. Mr. Barna stated he felt there was a definite hardship because of the location of the house on the lot and the size of the house. He stated, with the park across the street, they have recreational area and the distance between the house to the south leaves plenty of green area. He felt the intent of the code would be satisfied. W. Betzold stated he felt the hardship here isn't so much the shape of the lot, but the way the house is positioned by subsequent lot splits. He stated this makes it difficult to do something with the property because of where the house is located. He felt the intent of the code is satisfied and adequate space maintained between the adjacent homes. MOTION BY MR. PLEMEL, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 17.5 FEET TO 16.5 FEET, AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 28.5 FEET TO 15 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 FOOT R 24 FOOT ADDITION, AND A 24 FOOT % 24 FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A 6 FOOT FOYER ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, SPRING LAKE PARK LAKESIDE ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1586 OSBORNE ROAD N. E. APPEALS COMMIISSION MEETING JULY 24 1984 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: WnTf)N BY Mit. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY Mt. BARNA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE JULY 24, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Recording Secretary 0 ' 66840"7 h Granta Grants Recorded Checked Margin Tr. Indez OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF f INNESOTA, COUNTY OF ANOM I hereby Fertify that the within Instru- ment w,ileA s office for record on the i_ �GGA.D., 19,_ ,</.O 'clock Ex, and was duly recorded In book _ page unty Recorder Deputy City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley„ Minnesota 55432 Attn: Planning Department