The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 83-17CITY OF FRIOLEY, 6439 UNIVERSITY AVE. NE. FRIOLEY, MN. 68430 c COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST RETURN TO PLANNING ill Darrel Mark 04- (1;5./-7 COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW F' =ORC68 kou COMMENTS .✓Q/ �,1 ll�e`+-a� b�'�� G•��"E �P�°°y�Gd $ ��rf' bt:t�0� �,�6w�'/g1/L1.(•�(�/ /`j cess I May 1, 1983 C William S. Deblon Associate City Planner 6431 University Ave. N. E. Fridley, Minn. 55432 Dear Sir, I am writing in reference to placing a beauty salon in my home at 901 Overton Drive. I intend to construct my shop meeting all the requirements of the Office of Consumer Services. I am a licensed•beaut- ician, however, the Office of Consumer Services requires that a person has one year of experience working for a licensed manager operator prior to granting a manager operator license to an individual. Before construction of my shop I need to be assured that the City of Fridley will approve a permit for my shop with the understanding that I will have a volunteer tutor to fulfill the Office of Consumer Services, Cosmetology Units requirements of working under a licensed manager operator for one year. This licensed manager operator will in no way perform any individual shop duties other than guidance and instruction. Once a year has been completed, I will perform my duties alone in my shop. I intend to comply with all city zoning require- ments of a home occupation. I would be glad to meet with you personally to answer any additional questions you have. Thank You, 0 6�'Tuyu'k..' V6�YJ H-u_tj, Connie Van Hulzen 901 Overton Dr. N. E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Phone 571-2373 CITY OF FAIOLKY, SUBJECT 6431 UNIVEROMY AVE. NE. FAIOLEY, MN. 55438 WIM.U"-3450 VARIANCES ADDRESS �O' DATE_ 4/ APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL: STIPULATIONS: NAME REQUIRED: YES APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE LOT. NO. BLOCK NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: —e NO. I" FEE ��v D RECEIPT NO.9'-S TRACT OR ADDITION 1-76ee�- VARIANCE REQUEST (S): (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, p etc., where applicable) /� iJ FWE:,T R' edel p'M of � /U' /Q ct> trh7d' 7,-qMC&- 4'//eCx&j,,kG ,52 4)?a77- &'9mt) 75- 4?E 4✓ o7i/.,/ S' of pie- /�,Cb&MTP' l-'kC . List specific hardship(s) which requires the variances(s): �g,vor 66) l64z4/ T oPew R 4607'rry S#Lad /u 10 Am C. 71C' avUl /s &,eZWi,✓ 5' or 7, -*e- L-,A/n. 7,0/s ]9 ,F t9A9raaZb true.,® &,) &E- Re --Ola !&Op ES�, DATE SIGNATUR ADDRESS O/ 01 K TELEPHONE NO. M VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY -- 5-20-83 ;ter R�Rlltfa rt i Board members notified of meeting Dy�•-- --'�-•�� date notified, and °Yesa or ONou for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date* To Attend Gabel Pl-emel Barna Gerou Betzold Perso1 ranking appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified,' By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified M/M Darell-Johnson 850 Pandora Drive -.44-.E. A & G Engiineerinq Pro it S ari 0 TM Frank Karpowicz, 900.Pandora Drive N.E. r. M/M Ra , and Mel wren , 901 Pagd a ,Dri vg N. E . - Stene. 870 Pandora Drivp q-F- M/M Elmer Jahn, 891 Pandora Drive N.E. M/M M/M Daniel Spanie, 910 Pandora Drive N.E. M/M Darrel Clark, 911 Pandora Drive N.E — — - — Mr. & Mrs. Robert Culver, 920 Pandora Drive N.E. Mr Daniel Olson 921 Pandora Drive N.E.--- '—'— Mr. Will George, 930 Pandora Drive N!.E.-� M/M Donald Nelson 85 ive N.E.- -M . Ai- ie- lan, 851 Overton Drive N.E. kj M/M Roy Lober 860 Overton Drive N.E. _ - Mr�& Mrs. g99e.r" FL653,51. 900 Overtpn Drive N. : .�&..1.--Gc� M/M Richard Kremer, 920 Overton Drive N.E, M/M Brent Dojle 921 Overton Drive N.E. - Ms. Lillian Westin, 940 Overton Drive N.E. MIM Donald Baudette, 941 Overton Drive N.E. - M/M Edgar Brietenfeldt, 961 Overton Drive N.E. M/M Dennis Grahek, 931 Kennaston Drive N.E. M/M Sherman Hanson, 841 Kennaston Drive N.E. Pat KincTos, 6550 East River Road N.E. Apt. 2, Fridley, Mn 55432 _ CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Lice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley 11 conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University ?nue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 1983 in regard to the Ilowing matter: Variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback on the living side of a house from the required 10 ft. to 5 ft. to allow part of a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop, located on Lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace, the same being 901 Overton Drive N.E. 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. Item #2, May 24, 1983 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 901 Overton Drive N.E. A. PUBLIIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.052, $B, #1, requires a 10 foot minimum side yard setback for living area. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of twenty (20) feet between living areas in adjacent structures and fifteen (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: "Connie Van Hulzen wishes to open a beauty shop in her home. The only practical place for the salon would be the 9 foot x 22 foot storage area located adjacent to Doyles property (921 Overton). This attached storage area is within five (5) feet of the property line. This area if approved would not be used for any residential purposes at any time. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The real question here is whether to allow a living space to be five (5) feet from a side lot line. The neighboring structure is an attached garage. If the variance is granted it should be stipulated that the beauty shop meets the home occupation definition and that there be no openings in the outside wall nearest the lot line. City of Fridley APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 ,PAGE1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gabel called the Appeals Commission meeting of Tuesday. May 24, 1983 to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL"CALL: Members Present: Patricia Gabel, Alex Barna, Jim Plemel, Jean Gerou, Donald Betzold Others Present: Darrell Clark, City of Fridley Phil Larson, Stillwater, MN Bob Sherlock, Stillwater, MN Carolyn Doyle, Fridley Kenneth Kasden, P.O. Box 16203, 55416 Mark Sampson, 271 Sylvan Lane Glenn Van Hulzen, 901 Overton Drive N.E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1983: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to approve the minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE 140TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. VARIANCE RE U E AKT of LOT 1 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 25 THE SAME BEING 5695 HACKMANN UE N.E. Request by Suburban Lighting Inc., 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, lwater, MN 55082 [Robert Sherlock], for Union Oil Company). MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5695 Hackman Avenue X.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED HT RBQUIRSHM: Seotion 205.045. 32. limits a free standing sign to a maximum size of eighty (80) square feet per development. Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollution WW excessive use of signs in commercial areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: *Existing signs were erected under old ordinance and with the gas pricing competition today, we must have a way of advertising our products effectively.• Appeals Commission Meeting May 24, 1983 Page 4 Therefore, we feel the granting or this variance would be to everyone's advantage. C. ADMINISTRITITE STA" EETIEW: The existing free standing pylon sign Was erected o The prospective The sign Is S x 15 with a surface area of 75 sq e nant wishes to erect a 5' s 15, addition to the existing pylon sign thereby Increasing the total sign area to 150 square feet or 70 square feet over the allowed 80 square feet. The City has been in contact with 109000 Auto Parts about maintenance for their wall signs. If this variance is granted, both 10,000 Auto Parts and the new tenant should be made aware of the need for routine sign maintenance. Also, it is suggested that the new sign be of similar design and structure as the existing sign and that the base of the sign be Improved through refinishing and the installation of a planter. Mr. Clark presented photos of the area. Mr. Kasden was present. Ms. Gabel in- quired as to the agreement with 10,000 Auto store. Mr. Kasden stated he has just a one-month lease holding the space pending the appeals decision. He said the building is in deplorable condition; it needs new glass and the signage has to be fixed. He said the signage is needed for the Tile Factory store as the building is set far back. Mr. Clark said 10,000 Auto has been ordered to clean up their wall signs. Mr. Kasden explained they are moving into the space where Carpet Remnant used to be and they will sub=let from 10,000 who leases from Red Owl. Mr. Clark said staff has been working with 10,000 auto by phone and letters and if they don't clean up they will be tagged. l Mr. Kasden said their sign will be similar to 10,000 Auto's; a professional sign yellow with black lettering and read from both directions. Ms. Gabel asked about signage on the front of the store. Mr. Kasden said they will put up what is legally allowed and will clean up their area. He said it would take about $5,000 to clean up the front of the building and they want to put up external lighting. He said their closest other store is 7311 Brooklyn Boulevard and they sell strictly tile. He said they would probably sign a one-year lease with 10,000 and have three 5 -year renewals. He said the new sign will cost about $g00-1,000. He also said they do a lot of advertising and need that kind of marking for people to find the store. He also suggested putting some shrubbery around the existing sign. Ms. Gabel felt there was a legitimate hardship. Mr. Kasden said Fridley is a good location for them, there is a lot of building and they have people coming from all over to their store (Wisconsin, Duluth, southern Minnesota) and the space (about 4,000 sq. ft.) is what they need. He asked if 10,000 could be sent a letter regarding the appeals proceedings. Mr. Clark said it could be part of the motion. Mr. Clark said 10,000 leases from Red Owl who leases from Mrs. Theisen and the responsibility of cleaning up the wall signage, etc., is most likely 10,000 Auto's. Mr. Kasden said his lease would be a triple -net lease and he would be responsible for their own signage. MOICENVOTE, ALL1VOTINGseconded CHAIRPERSONBarna, GABELtDECLAREDthe THEpublic PUBLIChHEARING CLOSED VO , AT 8:15 P.M. f ADDeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 5 Mrs. Gerou said there was a definite hardship. Mr. Barna said the situation is somewhat similar to the Northwest Fabrics situation. Mr. Betzold agreed. Ms. Gabel agreed, and said there was no way you could read the sign at its present size. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend V the City Council, approval of the variance request to increase the maximum square footage of a free standing sign from 80 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft., located on Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat I, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432, with the stipulation that new signage not be put up until the present wall signage is cleaned up and brought up to the maintenance portion of the code, that the city staff shall direct a letter to 10,000 Auto store prior to the City Council meeting informing them of the Appeals Commission decision and recommendation, and that the new sign be of similar design and structure as the existing sign and that the base of the sign be improved through refinishing and the installation of a planter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. It. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 25 _FEET. AND �.. ..r a nrwrrn is crrT ccnm TO FIRT PRnPFRTY LINE .E. (Request , 271 Sylvan lane N.E., Fridiey m Dsgsc) MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:20 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADMNISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6150 Lem Lane •.E. A. POBLIC PURPOSE SERVED By REQDIRSI+IEIIT: Section 205.0529 4A, requires a minimum front yard setback of not less than thirty-five (35) feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way and also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment Into the neighbor's front yard. Section 205.1549 2, limits the projection of buttresses and eaves to not more than three (3) feet into any required yard. Public purpose served requirement is for reduce the building •lines ofsighte encroachment Into hthe c consideration neighbor's yard. S. STATED HARDSHIP: *Drop-off at point relatively near front of lot requires that house be set closer to boulevard to place footings at back of house on solid soil and also for walk -out basement to be placed in conjunction with existing topography. E -47 Appeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 6 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MIMI: This variance was considered and approved on October 9, 1979, with the exception of the buttress wall. The time limit on the approval has expired and the lot has since been purchased by Mr. Mark Sampson. There have been 0o neighboring lots built on since the last approval. If the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to recommend. Mr. Sampson was present. Mr. Clark presented the floor plan of the proposed new dwelling and Mr. Sampson present an artist's elevation and explained his plans. Mr. Sampson said he has spoken with his neighbors and they have no objections. He also said the setbacks would make the dwelling line up better with the existing homes in the area. Ms. Gabel said she has talked with Mrs. Palmer, who lives in the area, and she is in favor of the new dwelling. Mr. Sampson said they will be building a walk -out and there will be a large foundation; he said they will be getting extra fill for the back. Mr. Betzold asked when he would be starting. Mr. Sampson said he hopes to afford to start after the 4th of July, if not, possibly next Spring. MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A WME .VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Plemel said he could readily see the hardship in this situation and the rest of the members concurred. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission approves the variance request to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 25 feet, and allow a retaining wall to be located 15 feet from the front property line instead of the required 32 feet, to allow the construction of a new dwelling with an attached garage on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, the same being 6150 Kerry Lane N.E., Fridley, MN 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE TO 5 FEET TO ALLOW PART OF A CONVERTED GARAGE TO BE USED FOR A BEAUTY SHOP, LOCATED ON LOT 18, BLOCK 4 BROOKVIEW TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 901 OVERTON DRIV N.E. Request by Glenn Van Hulzen, 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Mn 5543217. MOTION by Mr. Sarna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to open the public hearing. UPON A V ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:31 P.M. _ Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADMDISTRATM STAFF REPORT 901 Overton Drive R.E. A. PUBLIIC PURPOSE SERVED BT REQOIRBMBPT: Section 205.052, 4B, •1, requires a 10 foot minimum side yard setback for living area. It Appeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 7 Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of twenty (20) feet between living areas in adjacent structures and fifteen (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. e. STATED RARDSBIP: ■Connie Van Bulzen wishes to open a beauty shop in bar borne. The only Practical place for the salon would be the 9 foot z 22 foot storage area located adjacent to Doyley property (921 Overton). This attached storage area is within five (5) feet of the property line. This area if approved would not be used for any residential purposes at, any time. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF =IRV: The real question here is whether to allow a living space to be five (5) feet from a side lot line. The neighboring structure is an attached garage. If the variance is granted it should be stipulated that the beauty shop meets the home occupation definition and that there be no openings in the outside wall nearest the lot line. Mr. Clark presented aerial photos of the area that showed the proximity of the two structures. He said he talked with the nearest neighbor, Mrs. Doyle, and there are some differences. Mrs. Doyle and Mr. Van Hulzen were present. Mr. Clark said they would want to be sure to restrict the openings on the wall facing the Doyles. Mr. Van Hulzen said there is presently a window on that side and it would be closed up and there would be no differences in the front of the house except to remove the existing garage door and put in a large bay window and there would be a fire exit door in the back. He felt it would be aesthetically pleasing and would decorate so it appeared all the same and there would be a walkway around the house. He said their garage is on the Able Street side. Ms. Gabel asked how many chairs in the beauty shop. Mr. Van Hulzen said there would be two, one wet and one dry and his wife would be the only one working as the city code prohibits employees. Mr. Betzold asked where the customers would park. Mr. Van Hulzen said they could park in that driveway in front or in their garage driveway or in the street. Mr. Betzold asked about the hours of business. Mr. Van Hulzen said they would be daytime, weekly hours as they are very busy at nights and on the weekends with their familiy. Mr. Betzold asked if there would be any business signs on the property. Mr. Van Hulzen said no, that this is something that interests his wife and would be security for her in case something happened to him. Mr. Betzold asked where he would be storing his boat. Mr. Van Hulzen said he has leased space in a storage place on Central Avenue. Ms. Gabel asked about the necessary licensing. Mr. Van Hulzen sai4 his wife has the necessary licenses and will get others if she needs them. Appeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 8 Mrs. Doyle presented copies of a letter she had written regarding this matter. Ms. Gabel read the letter for the record. (See attached letter). MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to receive Mrs. Doyle's letter into the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Doyle was strongly opposed the beauty parlor idea and the traffic on the walkway. She said they use their side door all the time and their dog would bark everytime some came and left the beauty parlor. She said they moved into the area because it was a quiet residential area and this business would be too close to their lot line. She felt that the beauty parlor could be put on the Able Street side as it faces no other homes or driveways. She also felt this could be detri- mental if her and her husband wanted to sell their home. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:47 P.M. Mr. Betzold felt the variance was hard to justify and due respect should be given to the Doyles and that this variance would clearly be at the Doyles' expense. Ms. Gabel said they have to keep in mind that the Van Hulzen's could do this some where else in their home. Mr. Plemel agreed with Mr. Betzold and Mrs. Gerou was not in favor of the variance. Mr. Barna said this was a hard situation for the neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, denial of the variance request to reduce the side yard setback on the living side of a house from the required 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow part of a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop, located on Lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace, the same being 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 24, 1983, ADJOURNED AT 8:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deb Niznik, Recording Secretary l ( May 25, 1983 t To Whom It May Concern: My neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Glenn VanHulzen, at 901 Overton Drive are re- questing a variance to come closer to our lot line with what is know as liv- ing quarters. Instead of 10 feet from the let line, they'dbe about S feet. The reason they want this is to build a beauty shop. My first thought when Mr. VanHulzen stated he was building "something for Connie" was that I didn't know what he was talking about. As I thought later about what he was building, I realized it could be a beauty shop. I thought "Oh no!" We use our side door most (actually all) of the time. Their variance would make it too close with people coming and going, our dog barking everytime someone came or left. Just the thought of a beauty shop so close up- set me. We bought in a quiet residential area nineteen years ago and would not want this type of business (like a restaurant business) to close to our home. Brent, my husband, tried to reassure me since he said the VanHulzens couldn't do this because it would be too close to the lot line. Mr. VanHulzen came over to our home to discuss this matter with us and ex- plained he was going to apply for a variance, and stated Connie, his wife,only did hair for a hobby and because she was bored, but also, in the next breath, stated she would have a business in case something happened to him. Therefore. instead of a few customers, it could develop into something more than a hobby created out of boredom, into a steady business. The VanHulzens are the third family to live at gni Overton Drive since we have lived next door. Another thought on this matter is, if they should move, wouldn't the variance stay in effect for the new owners? I also would like to be assured r%at ti.is type of beauty shop does in no way deter from tht. value of our own home and property. I know if we had realized a beauty shop. (nr anv other type of business) next aigor was there, we would not have bought our Dome. Mr. VanHulzen stated to me that people should be able to do what thev want on their own property. I stated to him if this variance request was being made by the Boyles, how would he feel, and he gave no reply. He commented that we've gotten along always before as neighbors. I felt he impled that if we didn't sign this variance, we would not be on frejndly terms any longer. Now I know why my husband has always said that he doesn't like the passel of a variance.. We have wanted to do a few things different on our property and couldn't because of city codes. I feel we have to respect these codes. It is quite c:fficult because as neighbors we may live next door to each other a lot not ve ntment of years and it is much more variance request. Thisnt oreallyaputseaeneighbornonhard the spot" because of this I thought more and more about my true feelings and I really do not want a beauty shop that close to my property line. Whether our neighbors were the vanHulzens, or the Jones, or black or white, I'd feel the same way. It would be much better if the shop was built on the Able Street side of their property as no home faces that way and no driveways are that close. Please, in considering this variance, have regards to my thoughts and feelings in this matter. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, G,A� 5� + Carolyn Doyle, Homeowner 921 Overton Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 .: Y V OF DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC WORKS Y MEMORAM 24, 1983 Memo No, 83. W Jerrold Boardman_ city Plnnnar / TO IACTIOF VARIANCE FOR 901 OVERTON DRIVE N.E./ CLARIFICATION OF HOME OCCUPATION DEFINITION s There was a question raised at the City Council meeting on June 20, 1983 on the relationship of the Cosmetology Rules of the State of Minnesota and the City's home occupation requirements. The specific issue had to do with the state and city definition of living space vs. accessory space in an at- tached garage. The home occupation ordinance, 205.02(28) addresses the fact that all home occupations must be carried on within the dwelling.unit and not from an accessory building and is clearly incidental to the residential use. The R-1 (single family) zone specifically lays out two setback requirements from other residential dwellings on a side lot line. That of an accessory building (of which an -attached garage is included) of 5' from the lot line and that of the living space of 10'' from the lot line. Since home occupations cannot operate within accessory, buildings, it has been interpreted that the occupation should be operated within the set- back of the living area (which is 10 ft.). Most home occupations, may infact, be operationg-out of space that is used both as a business as well as family living space (i.e. - studies, living rooms, basement space, etc.). The City Code defines lviing area as those spaces which are usually and customarily used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type of accessory space. In most cases, home occupations require more continual use of space by family members and could be interpreted as a family purpose. In comparing the State Rules for cosmetology with the City Code on Home occupation, we do -t-perceive any convlict in .interpretation. The State only restricts the space being used in the home to one purpose (that of a salon), it cannot be used for any residential purpose (i.e. sleeping, cooking; and other residential functions). They do not define living area. The City Code does not restrict the use of space of a living area to be used as a home occupation to only one use. The code allows multi use of the space for any family purpose. In the case of 901 Overton Drive N.E., the staff has interpreted to code to allow home occupation as part of the living area of a dwelling. The use would require a variance to the setback in order to allow its operation the present accessory building. L MEMORAM 24, 1983 Memo No, 83. W Jerrold Boardman_ city Plnnnar / TO IACTIOF VARIANCE FOR 901 OVERTON DRIVE N.E./ CLARIFICATION OF HOME OCCUPATION DEFINITION s There was a question raised at the City Council meeting on June 20, 1983 on the relationship of the Cosmetology Rules of the State of Minnesota and the City's home occupation requirements. The specific issue had to do with the state and city definition of living space vs. accessory space in an at- tached garage. The home occupation ordinance, 205.02(28) addresses the fact that all home occupations must be carried on within the dwelling.unit and not from an accessory building and is clearly incidental to the residential use. The R-1 (single family) zone specifically lays out two setback requirements from other residential dwellings on a side lot line. That of an accessory building (of which an -attached garage is included) of 5' from the lot line and that of the living space of 10'' from the lot line. Since home occupations cannot operate within accessory, buildings, it has been interpreted that the occupation should be operated within the set- back of the living area (which is 10 ft.). Most home occupations, may infact, be operationg-out of space that is used both as a business as well as family living space (i.e. - studies, living rooms, basement space, etc.). The City Code defines lviing area as those spaces which are usually and customarily used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type of accessory space. In most cases, home occupations require more continual use of space by family members and could be interpreted as a family purpose. In comparing the State Rules for cosmetology with the City Code on Home occupation, we do -t-perceive any convlict in .interpretation. The State only restricts the space being used in the home to one purpose (that of a salon), it cannot be used for any residential purpose (i.e. sleeping, cooking; and other residential functions). They do not define living area. The City Code does not restrict the use of space of a living area to be used as a home occupation to only one use. The code allows multi use of the space for any family purpose. In the case of 901 Overton Drive N.E., the staff has interpreted to code to allow home occupation as part of the living area of a dwelling. The use would require a variance to the setback in order to allow its operation the present accessory building. 4. The manager shall ensure that no unlicensed individual provides any cosmetology service in the salon. 5. The manager shall maintain, on the salon premises, the work time records of each employee, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 177.30. Time records shall be provided upon written request to the licensee or to the office. 6. The manager shall ensure that all equipment required by these rules is operational and maintained in proper working condition, that adequate supplies are in stock at all times, and that sanitation and safety requirements are met. 4 MCAR S 10.117 Additional requirements for specific types of salon licenses. In addition to the requirements of 4 MCAR SS 10.113-10.116, the requirements contained in A. -F. shall be met. A. Beauty salon and barber shop. A beauty salon and a barber shop may be operated in the same establishment, if the beauty salon occupies a physically separate area comprised of continuous footage, and is clearly identified as a beauty salon by a conspicuously displayed sign which states, "Beauty Salon" in letters at least two inches in height. B. Esthetician services. Esthetician services shall be provided only in a licensed cosmetology salon. Esthetician services shall not be offered in a manicurist salon. C. Mobile salons. 1. Mobile homes, motor homes, trailers, or any type of recreational vehicle which contains a beauty salon shall be permanently stationed at one location. 2. Salons in a vehicle which moves from one location to another shall not be allowed. D. Licensed health care facilities. 1. It is not necessary for a licensed health care facility to have a licensed salon in order for nursing and patient care personnel or volunteers to wash, set, or trim residents' hair. 2. Licensed operators with certificates of identification may provide cosmetology services to residents. 3. If the licensed health care facility chooses to have a licensed salon on the premises, all the requirements for a salon shall be met. E. Salons in private residences. Salons may be established in private residences, if the following conditions are met: 1. the salon shall not be used for any residential purposes at any time; 2. the salon shall be completely separated from the residential areas. There shall be a permanent, solid partition, from floor to ceiling, between the salon and the residential areas. Any door in this partition shall be kept closed at all times; 3. all cosmetology services offered by the salon shall be available within the salon; 4. laundry tubs shall not be used as shampoo bowls; and 5. the primary residential toilet facilities shall not be used for salon clients. F. Requirements for a booth license. A Minnesota licensed cosmetologist or manicurist manager may lease work space from a licensed salon and operate that space as an independent business upon obtaining a booth license. An applicant for a booth license shall meet the following requirements: 1. the applicant shall hold a current Minnesota manager license; 2. the applicant shall provide documentation of leased work space from a licensed Minnesota salon. The work space shall be at least 50 square feet for a cosmetologist or 35 square feet for a manicurist. The lease shall include provisions regarding responsibility for keeping records of hours worked by the booth licensee, maintenance responsibilities of the booth licensee, use of salon equipment, purchase of supplies, professional liability insurance coverage, and other agreements reached by the parties; 3. the applicant shall provide evidence of coverage by professional liability insurance in the amount required for salon licensees. It shall be acceptable for the salon owner's professional liability policy to cover the booth licensee; 4. the applicant shall be responsible for operating his or her work space in full compliance with these rules. 4 MCAR S 10.119 Requirements for maintaining a salon or booth license. The following requirements shall be met by all salons and booths: A. the licensee shall continuously comply with all applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes and rules; B. the manager shall advise the office of a change in name of the salon in writing, including both new and old name and 16 17 Item #2, May 24, 1983 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 901 Overton Drive N.E. A. PUBLIIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.052, 4B, #1, requires a 10 foot minimum side yard setback for living area. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of twenty (20) feet between living areas in adjacent structures and fifteen (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: "Connie Van Hulzen wishes to open a beauty shop in her home. The only practical place for the salon would be the 9 foot x 22 foot storage area located adjacent to Doyles property (921 Overton). This attached storage area is within five (5) feet of the property line. This area if approved would not be used for any residential purposes at any time. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The real question here is whether to allow a living space to be five (5) feet from a side lot line. The neighboring structure is an attached garage. If the variance is granted it should be stipulated that the beauty shop meets the home occupation definition and that there be no openings in the outside wall nearest the lot line. 901 Overton Drive N.E. _Salons in private residences Salons may be established in private residenceq, if the following conditions are met: 1. The salon shall not be used for any residential purposes at any time; 2. The salon shall be completely separated from the residential areas. There shall be a permanent, solid partition, from floor to ceiling, between the salon and the residential areas. Any door in this partition shall be kept closed at all times; 3. All cosmetology services offered by the salon shall be available within the salon; '4. Laundry tubs shall not be used as shampoo bowls; 5. The primary_ residential toilet facilities shall not be used for salon clients. Booth license applicants must submit the following documentation: 1. Documentation of holding a current Minnesota Cosmetologist, Manager licenst or Manicurist/Manager license. 2. Documentation of leased work space from a licensed Minnesota salon with work space of at least 50 sq. ft. for a cosmetologist or 35 sq. ft. - for a manicurist. The lease shall include provisions regarding responsibility for keeping records of hours worked by the booth licensee, maintenance responsiblities of the booth licensee, use of salon equipment, purchase of supplies, professional liability coverage, and other agreements reach- ed by the parties. This agreement may also state that the booth operator is an independent contractor and is free to set prices and work hours independent of the salon; is free to purchase supplies from whomever desired; and is free from extra duties such as telephone coverage, sweep- ing and cleaning, etc.; except for the booth operation proper. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 3 After further discussion, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Plemel, Mr. Barna and Mrs. Gerou agreed with three 7 sq. ft. signs, the elimination of the Truck sign the 47 ft. height of the primary sign. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, approval of the var' ce request to increase the size of a free standing sign from the maximum o 0 sq. ft. to 241 sq. ft; to increase the height of a free standing sign fr the maximum of 25 ft. to 47 ft.; to increase the size of the three directional gns from 4 sq. ft. to 7 sq. ft.; and to decrease the setback from right-of-way r a directional sign from the minimum of 10 ft. to 2 ft.; all located on Parcel 50, 4360, NZ of Section 12, the same being 7501 Viron Road N.E., Fridley innesota, with the stipulations that the Trucks sign shall be eliminated, the sq. ft. directional sign shall be eliminated and the Parts & Service dire tonal sign shall be moved to the other side of the driveway. UPON A VOICE VO , ALL VOTING AYE EXCEPT FOR ONE ABSTENTION, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. (Sent Back From Council) VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE LIVING SIDE OF A HOUSE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FT. TO 5 FT. TO ALLOW PART OF A CONVERTED GARAGE TO BE USED FOR A BEAUTY SHOP, LOCATED ON LOT 18, BLOCK 4, BROOK - VIEW TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 901 OVERTON DRIVE N.E. (Request by Glenn Van Hulzen, 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, MN 55432) MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:17 P.M. Mr. Clark said he was not sure they needed a public hearing for this item as it was sent back from the Council to the Commission to reconfirm or reconsider the interpretation of living space or accessory building and that staff checked the State rules and that it would be possible to interpret the State rules that the beauty shop must be operated from the living space from the house. Mr. Clark felt they could not consider that valid in the City zoning laws as it would disrupt their home occupation definition and they would have to allow machine shops, body shops, mechanics,etc. He said the staff feels the first interpretation is the proper inter- pretation. He further stated that staff spoke with Mr. Herrick's office (to Mr. Neumann) who did say that Council could approve the variance for a specific use for a defined period of time. Ms. Gabel stated the only issue here is the definition of living space. Mr. Betzold said the State rules have a fairly narrow definition and that certain parts of the home are not living space; the City looks at whole home as living space and it is their job to interpret the City Code. Mr. Plemel asked if this was to change their thinking on the lot line. Ms. Gabel explained that they are being asked to determine whether or not this is living space and the staff has interpreted this as living space which is why it requires a variance and they are asking if the Commission agrees with this interpretation. Mr. Plemel said if it is an accessory building, it can be 5 feet from the lot line and if it is living area, it has to be 10 feet from the lot line and that he concurs with staff in that he considers it living area. M Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 4 Mr. Betzold asked what the result would be if it was not determined as living space. Mr. Clark said then no variance would be necessary. He said the interpretation of the code is consistent, garages are accessory buildings, that they have allowed home occupation in living spaces, not garages -- home occupations cannot take place in an accessory building. He further explained that if the area is going to be a beauty shop and it is a living space, then it needs a variance'and to ask if living space was properly defined in the beginning. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing for the purpose of voting to determine the issue of living space on this matter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that, upon the Commission's review of their original determination of living space in this matter, it has been determined and affirmed that their motion was based on the issue of living space and this is living space. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the public hearing to determine whether or not there is additional information available at this time regarding the Cgmmission's original recommendation to the City Council on this matter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:33 P.M. Mr. Van Hulzen, Mr. Kramer and Mrs. Doyle were present for this matter. Mr. Van Hulzen felt it was an interesting approach to designate a variance for a particular purpose (beauty shop) and felt it would be a compromise satisfactory to everyone. Mrs. Doyle said she attended the City Council meeting and that she still does not care for the 5 feet from the lot line but that she spoke further with Mr. and Mrs. Van Hulzen and she is a little more comfortable with the beauty shop but asked that it be restricted to the Van Hulzens only and that Mrs. Van Hulzen promised not to have the beauty shop chair in the front window. Mr. Clark asked if she objected to the living space and Mrs. Doyle said she would not want a precedent set and is willing to compromise. Mr. Clark said the staff has a hard time keeping track when homes change ownership and they can keep track on a complaint basis and they could grant'a variance for a specific use for a specific period of time. Mr. Van Hulzen said the State Board licenses beauty shops annually and they will have a very re- stricted beauty shop. Mr. Betzold asked if they would be in violation of the code if they did business 7 days a week and Mr. Clark said they would not. Ms. Gabel asked if they could grant the variance exclusively to the Van Hulzens and have the Council work out the legal. Mrs. Doyle suggested having the Van Hulzens come in annually. Mr. Clark said they could have a letter requesting extension for another year and could not foresee a problem with, the Council, acting on an annual basis. Mr. Kramer spoke in favor of the variance and believed it will be a very restricted type of business and he is not concerned about traffic and that he can see the house out of his front window and thought that the changes will look nice. Appeals Commission Feting - June 28, 1983 Page 5 Mr. Betzold questioned the hardship in this matter. Mr. Van Hulzen said the main hardship is that his wife wishes to take care of the family and still work, that she needs the job and this is the least expensive and most economical way to accomplish this. He said other options would cause considerable disturbance and expense; the entryway would then have to be through the back yard into the basement and through the laundry room and the pool in the back yard would have to be fenced off. He felt this would also be additional disturbance to the neighbors and the existing area is the right size. Ms. Gabel felt the hardship is now defined much better and stated she had visited the area and there would be a safety factor with customers and the pool and the construction -costs are obvious and this appears to be a better way. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50 P.M. Mr. Plemel said the original objection of the neighbor's dissatisfaction has now been removed in this matter and he has no problem with the variance. Mrs. Gerou and Mr. Barna concurred. Mr. Betzold felt the additional information has clarified the issues. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Garou, that the Appeals Commission has reconsidered its earlier recommendation to the City Council, and based upon additional information presented that was not available at the last hearing on this matter, the Appeals Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance request to reduce the side yard setback on the living side of a house from the required 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop, located on lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace, the same being 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley Minnesota with the stipulation that this variance be restricted to the use of the Van Hulzens 2D.1y, that this is gran a 0r a per o 0 one year and to Be reviewed annually at the same time the State me city council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 27 AND THE S11 OF LOT 28, BLOCK 4, OAK GROVE 6573 ARTHUR STREET N.E. TO ALLOW FOR AN AD DWELLING (Request by Colin T. Gerrety, 6 3 55432) JarEY CITY CODE, TI TO 42.0 FT. ON LOT THE SAME BEING ?TION TO THE FRONT OF THE Arthur St. N.E., Fridley, MN MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. zold, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPE N GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:55 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the ff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE ST►FF REPORT 6573 Arthur Street 11.8. •. PQBLIC PORPM SERYED BY REQUIREMENT: Rection 205.153 (2) requires that in areas with front yard setbacks greater than the minimum, the average of the setbacks for buildings within 100 feet on either side shall prevail, with a detiation allowed of six feet more or less. a • • G., vvUWVwvvV ki%. V %IWk, V U\,VtoUUw Vry►.N►'•'•'• • 61 4# VL• • • • YYb0%) rp 8C 903 Overton a; \ BRDDAVEW TER. 3RD ADO. i si Opp ` qq•s /.s� "tip i s - a' ;�- �'�+� •moo a .'V LigOOKVjEI$ SEC6)N � s mnvc ' : �sieoonner TATEtT NK HIGHWAY N0. 65 s 901 OvertonQrive Glenn, Van Hu+zen lod Sux�iy - � ' ENGINEERING, INC. m6vwk r s-- En�ineers • i .Surveyors certificate of suave.IRvlm; 1.NEcs0AI MM of APPEALS ' EXHIBIT No MWD DATE_ /9:(:.dw Li a e t hereby cr% Adv/ Oki$ d a kw ad awry f nprsJdaAw 4'i so-my 4'!r jm� owl ad �'Ait /a44*7 4rr &45s , *wrm , &add/ w;4* awmAmmir , r{4. A r ward Bind �.o SL45URSW ENGINEERING. ft. � • Sh eels Commission Meeting - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MIN: e6 is variance was considered and approved on October 9, 1979, with the •xe tion of the buttress wall. The time limit on the approval has expired and t lot has since been purchased by Mr. Mark Sampson. There have been so mei ring lots built on since the last approval. If the Board"pproves this request, staff has no stipulations to recommend. Mr. Sampson was presennl Mr. Clark presented the floor plan of the proposed new dwelling and Mr. Sampson esent an artist's elevation and explained his plans. Mr. Sampson said he has spoke with his neighbors and they have no objections. He also said the setbacks would ke the dwelling line up better with the existing homes in the area. Ms. Gabel sai he has talked with Mrs. Palmer, who lives in the area, and she is in favor of the ew dwelling. Mr. Sampson said they will be building a walk -out and there will be a arge foundation; he said they will be getting extra fill for the back. Mr. Bet Id asked when he would be starting. Mr. Sampson said he hopes to afford to star iter the 4th of July, if not, possibly next Spring. MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to clo the public hearing. UPON A 6TZ—EVOTE,.ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Plemel said he could readily see the hardship in this si tion and the rest of the members concurred. MOTION by Mr.•Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commis on approves the variance request to reduce the front yard setback from the require 35 feet to 25 feet, and allow a retaining wall to be located 15 feet from the front operty line instead of the required 32 feet, to allow the construction of a new dw ling with an attached garage on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, the s e being 6150 Kerry Lane N.E., Fridley, MN 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING A CHAIRPERSON- GABEL DECLARED THE NOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY - VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE LIVING SIDE OF A HOUSE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO 5 FEET, TO ALLOW PART OF A CONVERTED GARAGE TO BE USED FOR A BEAUTY SHOP, LOCATED ON LOT 18, BLOCK 4, BROOKVIEW TERRACE. THE SAME BEING 901 OVERTON DRI N.E. Request by Glenn Van Hulzen, 901 Overton Orlve N.E., Fridley, Mn 55432 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to open the public hearing. UPON A V I E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:31 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 901 Overton Drive 1.E. A. PUXIIC PURPOSE SERVED 91 REQUIRRMERT: Section 205.052, 48, /1, requires a 10 foot minimum side yard setback for living area. 50 Appeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 7 Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of twenty (20) feet between living areas in adjacent structures and fifteen (15) foot between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to oonflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasinf open areas around residential structures. •. WAT® BARDSRIP: •Connie Van Bulsen wishes to open a beauty shop in her home. The only practical place for the salon would be the 9 foot s 22 foot storage area located adjacent to Doyles property (921 Overton). This attached storage area is within five (5) feet of the property line. This area if approved would not be used for any residential purposes at. any tine. C. ASKINISTRJTM STAFF IRVIN: The real Question bare is whether to allow a living space to be five (5) feet from a side lot line. The neighboring structure is an attached garage. If the variance is granted it should be stipulated that the beauty shop meets the home occupation definition and that there be no openings in the outside wall nearest the lot line. Mr. Clark presented aerial photos of the area that showed the proximity of the two structures. He said he talked with the nearest neighbor, Mrs. Doyle, and there are some differences. Mrs. Doyle and Mr. Van Hulzen were present. Mr. Clark said they would want to be sure to restrict the openings on the wall facing the Doyles. Mr. Van Hulzen said there is presently a window on that side and it would be closed up and there would be no differences in the front of the house except to remove the existing garage door and put in a large bay window and there would be a fire exit door in the back. He felt it would be aesthetically pleasing and would decorate so it appeared all the same and there would be a walkway around the house. He said their garage is on the Able Street side. Ms. Gabel asked how many chairs in the beauty shop. Mr. Van Hulzen said there would be two, one wet and one dry and his wife would be the only one working as the city code prohibits employees. Mr. Betzold asked where the customers would park.. Mr. Van Hulzen said they could park in that driveway in front or in their garage driveway or in the street. Mr. Betzold asked about the hours of business. Mr. Van Hulzen said they would be daytime, weekly hours as they are very busy at nights and on the weekends with their familiy. Mr. Betzold asked if there would be any business signs on the property. Mr. Van Hulzen said no, that this is something that interests his wife and would be security for her in case something happened to him. Mr. Betzold asked where he would be storing his boat. Mr. Van Hulzen said he has leased space in a storage place on Central Avenue. Ms. Gabel asked about the necessary licensing. Mr. Van Hulzen said his wife has the necessary licenses and will get others if she needs them. 5P ADDeals Commission Meeting - May 24, 1983 Page 8 Mrs. Doyle presented copies of a letter she had written regarding this matter. Ms. Gabel read the letter for the record. (See attached letter). MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to receive Mrs. Doyle's letter into the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Doyle was strongly opposed the beauty parlor idea and the traffic on the walkway. She said they use their side door all the time and their dog would bark everytime some came and left the beauty parlor. She said they moved into the area because it was a quiet residential area and this business would be too close to their lot line. She felt that the beauty parlor could be put on the Able Street side as it faces no other homes or driveways. She also felt this could be detri- mental if her and her husband wanted to sell their home. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:47 P.M. Mr. Betzold felt the variance was hard to justify and due respect should be given to the Doyles and that this variance would clearly be at the Doyles' expense. Ms. Gabel said they have to keep in mind that the Van Hulzen's could do this some where else in their home. Mr. Plemel agreed with Mr. Betzold and Mrs. Gerou was not in favor of the variance. Mr. Barna said this was a hard situation for the neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, denial of the variance request to reduce the side yard setback on the living side of a house from the required 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow part of a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop, located on Lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace, the same being 901 Overton Drive N.E.. Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL OTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 24, 1983, ADJOURNED AT 8:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deb Niznik, Recording Secretary 901 Overton Drive N.E. 5 U Glenn Van Hulzen f sa; .• 4 ---- - ---- n a $$11 ijc &W t e -'L4 Ylgll{-- 3 • , IA 'L Ts, i 1 40 ..�: '® 1' •a-+. ;i• Ali :Mt: . ` a —.'St. j 8 + N i a a�a.•..}}r W' yH _ _ _T7��.' ' �' ; `� / dI � Q�NI ill 9 � •.+. LO ty 01 � Ih "'' _ _.. � a -m► ,v •" ai '.a na- i---�rws� - `�wltYi�a . '- �... � � -, • .,. � ` � IBJ •` �` ° 1 S i' rS,rr 3�� Sm°��r -�e _1Si� �T�rd. � � lu�j �`,�\y .Q� ;` - i 9 Ze" 3 eery Nil! ^ ! ' :1 �'�° • 1 '19 �• 70M3M � A ;NtN as•� mq . l � - "a`t'"'_ �d l .`..a,'mr;� PAY a S9 'ON AtlMM U1 JiNMLL13itl1S"--"- --- i i ' $ • $ • $ ' n W N 03S� lN3 500216' 1,� •} w ♦ '�' + � ' $ ''t> . =� ji , i --- /2 �'1 i � } � 1 A I R S r♦ 1:_ b.1 Loc t on �. VOW oec W& Main► 6 1 ". 5 V ' F 901 Overton rive r 3 Glenw Van Hu�zen fol d !A!& sy�o►JtJV,- ' ENGINEERING, INC. b raa�o► � �lI-cock --- En ineers Surveyors . srscate of sstz'�ie IR v/NG L. �I %EG S ON • /� �'�'+�:' FMOLEY BOARD OF APPEALS '' '' EXHIBIT No. 0% DATE I, V% GO 904 MW CP — Z%F cd D c �c N, L /hereby cerfify Ad AS6 a o +W &-d WrZd AgWr$ddVM rr 49 'd survey grhiir /aafbn 4rar datdirp , #MW7 , &7d*fl fiSi* SWV rhffgWts , rf Ma . fW rr WMW died A.D SUOUROAN fNG/NEEM/, *G. N --r` UG- ?tMTil{(� t a d[ o A 5 Vl t t May 25, 1983 To Whom It May Concern: , My neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Clenn VanHulzen, at 901 Overton Drive are re- questing a variance to come closer to our lot line with what is known as liv- ing quarters. Instead of 10 feet from the lot line, they'd be about 5 feet. The reason they want this is to build a beauty shop. My first thought when Mr. VanHulzen stated he was building "something for Connie" was that I didn't know what he was talking about. As I thought later about what he was building, I realized it could be a beauty shop. Their ' thought "Oh no!" We use our side door most (actually all) of the time. variance would make it too close with people coming and going, our dog barking everytime someone came or left. Just the thought of a beauty shop so close up- set me. We bought in a quiet residential area nineteen years ago and would not want this type of business (like a restaurant business) to close to our home. Brent, my husband, tried to reassure me since he said the VanHulzens couldn't do this because it would be too close to the lot line. Mr. VanHulzen came over to our home to discuss this matter with us and ex- plained he was going to apply for a variance, and stated Connie, his wife,only did hair for a hobby and because she was bored, but also, in the next breath, happened to stated she would few customers, itss in couldcase developeintogsomething moreim. thanaTherefore. hobby instead of a created out of boredom, into a steady business. The VanHulzens are the third family to live at 901 Overton Drive since we have lived next door. Another thought on this.matter is, it they should move, wuuldn't the variance stay in effect for thi- new owners? I also wc►uld like to be assured t}•at tt.is type of beauty shop d"s in no way deter from tht. value of our own home and property. I know if we had realized a beauty shop (ter any other type of business) next JQor was them , we would not have bought our Dome. Mr. VanHulzen stated to me that people should be able to do what thev want on their own property. I stated to him if this variance request was beane made by the Doyles, how would he feel, and he gave no reply. He commented that we've gotten along always before as neighbors. I felt he impled that if we didn't sign this variance, we would not be on frei ndly terms any longer. Now I know why my husband has always said that he doesn't like the passel of aerty and variance. We have wanted to do a few things different on our prop couldn't because of city codes. I feel we have to respect these codes. It is e may live next door to each other a lot quite e:fficult because as neighbors w of years and it valiance request. Thismuch more pleasant onot reallyave putseaentment neighbornonhard the srot!! because of this 5X I thought more and more about my true feelings and I really do not want a beauty shop that close to my property line. Whether our neighbors were the VanHulzens, or the Jones, or black or white, I'd feel the same way. It would be much better if the shop was built on the Able Street side of their property as no home faces that way and no driveways are that close. Please, in considering this variance, have regards to my thoughts and feelings in this matter. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, l�Da Carolyn Doyle, Homeowner 921 Overton Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Mr. Flora stated Tile Factory Outlet has requested an addition to the existing sign of 5 x 15 feet and this location would only be acce pable to their use, if the variance is granted, in order to provide t em with the needed advertising exposure. Mr. Flora stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance with the stipulation that the new signage not,,;be put up until the present wall signage is cleaned up and brought up to the,:mzintenace portion of the code. He stated they also recommended staff direct a letter to 10400 Auto Parts advising them of the Appeals Commission decision and recommendation and that the new sign be of similar design and structure as the existing sign and the base of the sign improved through` refinishing and installation of a.planter. Mr. Flora stated staff has written a letter to 10,000 Auto Parts, as requested by the Appeals ConmissionObut has received no reply as of this date. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and approve the variance to increase the maximum allowed square footage of a free standing sign from the permitted 80 square feet to 150 square feet fo'the property at the corner of University and Mississippi with the following``stipulations: (1) the new signage not be put up until the present wall signage is cleaned up and brought up to the maintenance portion of the code; and (2) the new sign be of similar design and structure as the existing sign and that the base of the sign be improved through refinishing and if,(stallation of a planter and plantings, as approved by City staff. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this variance is requested in order to allow a portion of a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop at 901 Overton Drive at the corner of Able Street and Overton Drive. Mr. Flora stated the neighboring property owner, Mrs. Doyle, strongly opposed the idea at the Appeals Commission meeting and the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the variance to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow conversion for part of the garage to be used for a beauty shop. He stated the real question is whether to allow a living space within five feet from a side yard line of the neighbor's garage. Mayor Nee asked if this wasn't defined as living area, if there would be a problem. Mr. Flora stated there probably wouldn't be a problem, however, it was defined as living area because people being in that area change it from the definition of storage and accessors use. Councilman Hamernik asked if someone put in a workshop if it would be defined as living space. Mr. Flora stated a workshop would be a limited use and, in this case, the space would be used every day. LOT SPLIT REouE_ST, L S. #83-02. RICHARD & SONIA PETERSON, TO MARE A NEW BUILDING SITE, 241 57TH PLACE N. E.A. : Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the petitioner owns four lots totaling 160 feet of lot area and the request is to split off Lot 12 and the westerly 30 feet of Lot 13 so that Lots 12 and 13 will become a.70 foot lot. He stated the new lot created by the lot split does meet all the "requirements of the code, and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the lot split. Mr. Flora stated no park fee has been paid at this time MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant lot split request, L ''S. #83-02. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ;'` Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this request is to increase the maximum square footage of a free standing sign by adding a 3 x 6 foot section to the bottom of an existing 50 square foot sign. Mr. Flora stated there are two existing free standing pylon signs on this Union Oil Company property. One sign was erected in 1970 and is a 12 foot diameter circle that is 11 ''square feet in area and the second sign was erected in 1977 and is a 50;6quare foot gas price sign. Mr. Flora stated the existing signs were erected under the old ordinance and with gas pricing competition today, the petitioners stated they must have a way of advertising their products effectively. Mr. Flora stated the ;Appeals Commission felt the hardship was self-imposed, as they have changed ,the use of the 50 square foot sign, and, therefore, recommended denial/of the variance. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the Appeals Comidsion and deny this variance request by Union Oil Company. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the,;%motion carried unanimously. `17eRTANf'F RF�(Y]FST TO INMEASE THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A FREE ,1 STANDIWG SIGN AT 6525 UNnnMSITY AVENUE NE, TILE FACMW OLMT: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this property is located on the northeast corner of Mississippi Street and Highway 47 (University Avenue). He stated the request is to increase the maximum square footage of a free standing sign from the 80 square feet permitted by the code to 150 square Mr. Flora stated there is an existing 5 x 15 foot pylon sign at this intersection which is used by 10,000 Auto Parts, however, Tile Factory Outlet felt additional signage was needed due to poor visibility of the store itself. k - Mr. Herrick, qt home occupatio . Mr. Flora sta only by the r living space. Mr. Glenn Van has stated th stated this classifies a living space. Attorney, asked if it was a question of living space or a staff's position was it would be used on a daily basis, not ents, but by other persons and, therefore, classified it as Plzen, the petitioner, stated the State Board of Cosmetology a beauty shop shall not be in any living space of a home. He 9s more to the complexity of the stivation as the City Duty shop as living space and the State Board says it can't be Mr. Van Hulzen stated a beauty shop could be put in their they wished to have it located in a portion of their storage area d is adjacent to the Doyle's garage. Mr. Van Hulzen there would be in the back of Mr. Van Hulzen the shop could Able Street. Able Street an to accomodate , Mr. Van Hulz side of the removed and install a he Doyle Is, to basic object Mr. Van Hulze working hours personal traf: Able Street, their own fam Overton Drive Councilman B enter the be of the home restrict tra basement, however, garage which is now stated if the beauty shop has to be located in the basement, a walk along the east side of his home, with an entry door put the home into the basement area. stated it was suggested at the Appeals Commission meeting that probably be located in a better place and provide entry from 4r. Van Hulzen pointed out there is a very narrow setback on i, further, the basement would have to be completely remodeled i beauty shop at that end of the home. stated if the Council allows the variance, the window on the rage would be closed and the existing garage door would be eplaced with a bay window. Mr. Van Hulzen stated he would e, as a sight and sound barrier between his property and the iminate Mrs. Doyle's concern about the traffic since this is her nl stated he would make a committment they would have only normal Mr. Van Hulzen stated he felt they have reduced their own c on Overton, when the garage was built with the entrance on d the beauty shop shouldn't generate any more traffic than what y generated when they were using the garage are which faces to stated it seemed Mr. Van Hulzen's plan for persons to shop in front of the home, rather than going around the side entry to the back through the basement, would actually to the Doyle's area. Mrs. Carolyn yle, 921 Overton Drive, stated her biggest objection is having a beauty sho next to her home. She stated they bought a home in a residential ate and didn't want to be located near a business. Mrs. Doyle reviewed her concerns, as outlined in a letter of May 25, 1983, regarding a beauty shop being so close to their home; the fact the variance would stay in effect if the Van Hulzen's would move and there were new owners; and the affect it would have on the value of their home and property. Mayor Nee ask if a hedge was there between the properties if this would be more acceptab e. Mrs. Doyle stated it would close them in even more so it almost makes t worse. Councilman Barnette asked if a variance was granted to a person or to the property. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney stated, generally, variances are granted to the property. Mrs. Doyle stated if the Van Hulzen's should sell, the variance would still be valid for the property. Councilman Barnette felt this was a legitimate concern. Councilman Schneider stated what this comes down to is that the Van Hulzen's will have a beauty shop in their home, as it is permitted under home occupations. If the variance is granted, the entry will be in the front and if it is not granted, Mr. Van Hulzen stated he would have a walkway to the side and an entry in the back to the basement. He stated regardless of whether a beauty shop is located in the garage or in the basement, it will still be the same distance from Mrs. Doyle's home. Mrs. Doyle felt if the beauty shop was located in the basement it at least wouldn't be so close to her property. Councilman Hamnernik stated there are two persons in his area who have beauty shops in their home and he didn't see any problems with traffic. Mayor Nee stated he couldn't see where this hone occupation of a beauty shop would be any distrubance in the neighborhood. Mrs. Doyle stated she just felt opposed to it and wanted to express her thoughts. Councilman Hamernik stated he called the Chairman of the Appeals Commission to discuss this with her. He stated she agreed there were points that had been made since their meeting which would shed a different light on how they approached it or their thinking on it. He stated he had talked with some of the neighbors in the area and they felt it was a desirable situation. Mr. Dick Kremer, 920 Overton Drive, stated he was not concerned about the traffic and spoke in favor of the variance. He felt the plans to add a bay window would enhance the property. Mr. Brent Doyle, 921 overtop, stated he felt the ,Council is missing a significant point and it isn't the beauty shop that should be the concern, but the granting of the variance. He stated once the variance is granted, it is for the life of the property. if the variance is granted, it gives permission to use this area as living space. He felt the requirement of the code is there for a reason and the question of the beauty shop shouldn't even enter into it. He stated the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance and once the variance is granted, it sets a precedent. Mr. Doyle stated, as far as the concept of a hedge, it isolates him and his hone and puts him where he can't see out. Mr. Doyle stated the statement that if the Commission had all the facts, they might have voted differently he doesn't know what they would do, but if this is the case, he felt it should be referred back to them. Mr. Doyle felt, in any case, it is in violation of the code if it is living space and if the variance is gralited, it can be used as living space for the Van Hulzen's or any one else that moves into this home in the future. Mayor Nee exp ained the reason there is an appeal procedure is to make adjustments in the ordinance because sometimes the rigid application isn't reasonable. H stated a number of side yard variances have been granted in order to make thing work better, and the legalism of it is flexible. Mr. Flora, P lic Works Director, stated perhaps the question of the definition of iving space versus home occupation use should be clarified. Mr. Herrick f t if this matter is referred back to the Commission, there should be some guidance given in order for then to make the determination. MOTION by Co cilman Hamernik to direct staff to forward to the Appeals Commission inf rmaton so a determination can be made as far as what is living space and refe this variance request back to the Appeals Commission. Seconded by Councilman itzpatrick. Mrs. Doyle stated she thought the ordinance has always been in effect in Fridley. Councilman Schieider stated the question is the definition of living space, however, the ordinance regarding the setback requirement has been in effect for some time. Mr. Herrick,'ty Attorney, stated there is a code that indicates how far the living area h to be from adjacent property, however, the question hasn't arisen before ether this type of business should be classified as living area and felt ere should be more research to see if ther is any precedent. Mrs. Arlene Br itenfeldt, 980 Overton Drive, spoke in favor of the beauty shop and the varian a and stated she didn't feel there would be a traffic problem. Mrs. Kremer, 020 Overton, felt it would be nice to have the bay window in front of the an Hulzen's and spoke in favor of the beauty shop. UPON A VOICE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the ion carried unanimously. Mr. Qureshi, 'ty Manager, stated notices will not be sent again, however, this item wo d go back to the Appeals Commission on June 28 and come back before the Co cil on July 11, 1983. MOTION by Co cilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission ting of June 8, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, 1 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Flora, alic Works Director stated the bids were opened June 10, 1983 for the 1983 oint and Crack R aling and Concrete Repair Project. He stated this was a joint bid with Col is Heights and New Brighton and six bids were received. Mr. Flora stated it was 'lt the bid for the joint and crack resealing was reasonable an'competi,, ve, however, the price for removing and replacing pavement sec ons w "above the reasonable estimates. He stated staff has a attempted to negotiate a contract with the low bidder for just the joint and crack resealing portion, but this is unacceptable to them and, therefore, would recommend the contract not be awarded and to readvertise for new bins. e INION by Councilman Barnette to receive the bids for the 1983 Joint.aiL. d Crack Resealing and Concrete Repairs Proejct. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to reject the bids for the 19p" joint and Crack Resealing and Concrete Repair Project and authorize the reajdvertising of bids for this project. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. AVEN[]E AMID TRUNK HIGHWAY #65 Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the State of Minnesota Department of Transporation has plans to install a traff id'signal at Highway 65 and 52nd Avenue as this intersection has experienced 'a number of accidents. He stated the signal will allow all the traffic,, aignals from 40th to I-694 to be syncronized and should alleviate some of the problem on 53rd as well as improve the safety at the intersection'' Mr. Flora stated the cities of Columbia Heights and Fridley will each contribute 25% of the non -Federal aid portion of the project and Fridley's estimated share is around $5,0001.;, MOTION by Councilman Hamernik :to adopt Resolution No. 57-1983, and authorize entering into the agreement th the State and City of Columbia Heights for a traffic control signal at 511 Avenue and Highway #65. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vq`te, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTLTTL+DTR1TnAT nv-Annrmw%r / D RIP% DDQnT_T1R+TnA1 Un r%-1 GAI TiV'AT. T.ARnR AaRF.F.MF.111T Mr. Inman, City Clerk; stated an agreement has been reached an Appendix B to the master contract or Local No. 49. He stated the two major changes in Appendix B is that a 49er's Union has accepted the Annual Leave Program which is the samerogram the non-union City employees went on on January 1, 1983. 7he second maj item of change is in severance pay and all severance pay hours accrued of July 1, 1983 will be converted to Annual Leave. He stated there will b9l no additional severance pay within the 49er's contract. MO'T'ION by Vbuncilman Hamernik to adopt Appendix B to Resolution No. 5-1983. Seconded #y Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declAred the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Inman, City Clerk, stated the only item open this year was wages and the firefighters have agreed to 6% across-the-board increase. q I. R TM8 CITY OR FRI L Y DATE June 24 FROM D.P.W. John G. SUBJECT Living DIRECTORATE OF UBLIC WORKS 983 ora ce Definition <ly�Film r. , MEMORANDUM TO ACTION1 INFO. Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager At the June 20, 1983 City Council meeting, a question was raised in relation to the variance request for 901 Overton Drive pertaining to the staff inter- pretation of living space. Attached a e extracts of the City Zoning Code (present and proposed are the same) definitions relating to home occupations and living space. The property had previously requested the original garage be converted to living spa a When the second accessory garage was requested in 1978. This variance w s denied by the Appeals Commission on March 28, 1978. JGF/mc Attachment Definitions 205.03 DEFINITIO■S For the purpose of this chapter certain terms and words are hereby defined: Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words in the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular; the word "building" shall include the word "structure"; and the word "lot" shall include the word "plot"; and the word "shall" is mandatory and not directory; and the word "including" shall mean "including, but not limited to". V. Accessory Building or Use. A subordinate building or use which is ated on the same lot as the principal building or use and is necessary or incidental to the conduct of the principal building or use. 2. Alley. A public right of way less than thirty (30) feet iq width which affords secondary access to an abutting property. 3. Alternate Energy Devices. Non-fossil fuel energy devices. 4. Apartment. A room or suite of rooms in a multiple dwelling which is arranged, designed, used or intended to be used as a dwelling unit for one (1) family. 5. Automobile Service Station. A place where fuel and other essential services related to the operation of motor vehicles are retailed directly to the public. This does not include motor vehicle repair. 6. Bicycle Lanes And Ways. A bicycle lane is any portion of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power and so designated by appropriate signs and markings. A bicycle way is a path, sidewalk or portion thereof designated for use by bicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power. T. Block. That property abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting or intercepting streets or nearest intersecting or intercepting street and railroad right of way, waterway, or other barrier to or gap in, the continuity of development along such street. 8. Boarding, Rooming Or Lodging House. Any dwelling where meals and lodging for compensation are provided for five (5) or more people who are not members of the principal family. 9. Boulevard. That area between the street surfacing or curb and the public right of way line. 10. Building. Any structure having walls and a roof, built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind. 11. Building Height. The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of a finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to the mean distance between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. 12. Business. Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold or which occupies time, attention, labor or materials or where services are offered for compensation. 205-02 Definitions Definitions 27. Garage, Private. An accessory building or accessory portion of the . principal building which is used to store motor vehicles or other personal property of the resident. 28. Garage, Public. A building used for the sale of new or used motor red for a eration vehicles mor otorevehicles vare crepaired les e awithinrked rtheostructure asmanservice or where accessory to the again use. 29. Garage, Repair. A place where major repair of motor vehicles is conducted, including engine rebuilding or reconditioning and collision service ivehicles; Service misor fender limited tormot straightening nvehicles licensed painting below of motor vehicles: category "G". 30. Grade, Finished Ground. The average finished ground elevation along the front wall of the main building. 31. Guest RooA room or by one oup of rooms 1 ) intended morefor people,inwhich sleeping no for compensation, 0cui sion is madefor cooking. HomeOccupation. Any occupation or profession engaged in by the pant of a dwelling unit and carried on within the unitand no incidental accessory buildigg. Any home occupation shall be clearly secondary to thechar cter. Theuse of the following aremises and criteria of home occupations; hall not change the " residential char A. Professional offices, minor repair services, photo or art studios, dressmaking, teaching and similar uses. B. No stock in trade is stored outside the dwelling unit. C. No over the counter retail sales are involved. D. Entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. given E. Teaching is to be limited to six (6) or less students at any g time. F. Day care II facilities that serve ten (10) or fewer children. G. In addition to spaces required by the occupant (family), there is no need for more than two (2) additional parking spaces at any given time. H. Employes shall consist of members of the immediate family only. 33. Hospital. An institution open to the public, in which sick or injured persons receive medical, surgical or psychiatric treatment. 34. Hotel. A building consisting (place rmore of indi idualsest ooms and designed for occupancy as lodging 35. Integral art Of A Pr structure in ncipal Structuret rms.ofConstructed finishing and conformity to the principal overall use. 36. Junk Yard. (Automobile Recycling Center) An open area where waste and used materialslare bought, sold, exchanged, stored, packed, or handled as 'a principal use, including scrap iron and other metals, 205-04 Definitions paper, rags, rubber, wire and bottles. A dunk yard includes an automobile wrecking or salvage yard, but does not include uses that are entirely within enclosed buildings or City Council approved recycling centers. 37• Kennel. Any lot or premises on which three (3) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of three (3) or more dogs and cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. 38. Laboratory. A place devoted to experimental study such as testing and analyzing. The term laboratory does not include product manufacturing. 39. Landscaping. The improvement of land by the addition of berms, trees, shrubs, ground cover, crushed rock, wood chips, retaining walls and other functional, ornamental or decorative features. PLiving Area. The area of a dwelling unit designed to be used for ving purposes, including bedrooms, dining room, living room and the like, which are usually and customarily used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type of accessory space. 41. Loading Dock. Any off-street area or raised platform, on the same lot with a building or contiguous to a group of buildings, for the temporary parking of a'oommercial vehicle while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. 42. Lot. A parcel of land sufficient in size to meet the minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are required. A lot shall have frontage on a dedicated or private street and may consist of: A. A single lot of record or a portion of a lot of record. B. A combination of complete lots of record and/or portions of lots of record. C. A parcel of land described by metes and bounds, provided that any subdivision of any residual lot or parcel shall meet the requirements of this chapter. 43. Lot, Corner. A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) or more streets. 44. Lot Depth. The horizontal distance measured between the front and rear lot lines. 45. Lot, Double Frontage. A lot with opposite lot lines on two (2) nonintersecting streets. Both street frontages shall be considered as front yard areas. 46. Lot, Frontage. The front of a lot shall be that boundary of a lot along a street right of way. If a lot is a corner lot, the front shall be the shorter lot line that abuts the street right of way, but if the dimensions of a corner lot are within ten percent (10x) of being equal, the owner may select either street lot line as the front. 47. Lot Vidth. The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point equal to the minimum required front yard depth. 48. Mobile Home Park. An approved area for the parking of occupied manufactured homes. 205-05 06nts R-1 District 2. Lot Width. The width of a lot shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet at the required setback, except: A. On a subdivision or plat recorded before December 29, 1955, the ainimum width of a lot is fifty (50) feet. B. If lot splits are permitted with the lot width less than the required seventy-five (75) feet, the lot must still meet the most restrictive lot requirements and setbacks; except for the lot area and lot width. C. As allowed under Special District Regulations or Planned Development District Regulations. 3. Lot Coverage. Not more than twenty-five percent (25x) of the area of a lot shall be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings. 4. Setbacks. A. Front Yard: A front yard with a depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet is required, except as noted in Section 205.0449 #7. G. Side Yard: -2(1) A side yard of ten (10) feet is required between any living area and side property lines. x(2) A side yard of five (5) feet is required between an attached accessory essay buildi� or u` and side property lines. (3) Corner Lots: (a) The side yard width on a street side of a corner lot shall not be less than seventeen and one-half (17.5) feet. (b) When the lot to the rear has frontage along a side street, no accessory building on a corner lot within twenty-five (25) feet of the common property line shall be closer to said side street than thirty (30) feet; provided however, that this regulation shall not be interpreted as to reduce the buildable width of a corner lot to less than twenty-five (25) feet. (c) Any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the aide street, shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet from the property line of a side street. C. Rear Yard: (1) A rear yard with a depth of not less than twenty-five percent (25x) of the lot depth is required with not less than twenty-five (25) feet permitted or more than forty (40) feet required for the main building. 205-24 �. �oKi Y'� •Fr ' JS .r �" ��h� ":a" ��-" } S b,d` c�"�� a '^?. -:`" .�,.�,:��'- .� •,fir �, �' �� Dl�;`'�' �_`.ai�=+•'�.�—�e+'�' r�.:,�,� � „fit - IN 6. The manager shall ensure that all equipment required by these rules is operational and maintained in proper working condition, that adequate supplies are in stock at all times, and that sanitation and safety requirements are met. 4 MCAR S 10.117 Additional requirements for specific types of salon licenses. In addition to the requirements of 4 MCAR SS 10.113-10.116, the requirements contained in A. -F. shall be met. A. Beauty salon and barber shop. A beauty salon and a barber shop may be operated in the some establishment, if the beauty salon occupies a physically separate area comprised of continuous footage, and is clearly identified as a beauty salon by a conspicuously displayed sign which states, "Beauty Salon" in letters at least two inches in height. B. Esthetician services. Esthetician services shall be provided only in a licensed cosmetology salon. Esthetician services shall not be offered in a manicurist salon. c. Mobile salons. 1. Mobile homes, motor homes, trailers, or any type of recreational vehicle which contains a beauty salon shall be permanently stationed at one location. 2. Salons in a vehicle which moves from one location to another shall not be allowed. 0Licensed health care facilities. I. It is not necessary for a licensed health care facility to have a licensed salon in order for nursing and patient care personnel or volunteers to wash, set, or trim residents' hair. 2. Licensed operators with certificates of identification may provide cosmetology services to residents. 3. If the licensed health care facility chooses to have a licensed salon on the premises, all the requirements for a salon shall be met. E. Salons in private residences. Salons may be established in private residences, if the following conditions are met: 3. all cosmetology services offered by the salon shall be available within the salon; 4. laundry tubs shall not be used as shampoo bowls; and 5. the primary residential toilet facilities shall not be used for salon clients. F. Requirements for a booth license. A Minnesota licensed cosmetologist or manicurist manager may lease work space from a licensed salon and operate that space as an independent business upon obtaining a booth license. An applicant for a booth license shall meet the following requirements: 1. the applicant shall hold a current Minnesota manager license; 2. the applicant shall provide documentation of leased work space from a licensed Minnesota salon. The work space shall be at least 50 square feet for a cosmetologist or 35 square feet for a manicurist. The lease shall include provisions regarding responsibility for keeping records of hours worked by the booth licensee, maintenance responsibilities of the booth licensee, use of salon equipment, purchase of supplies, professional liability insurance coverage, and other agreements reached by the parties; 3. the applicant shall provide evidence of coverage by professional liability insurance in the amount required for salon licensees. It shall be acceptable for the salon owner's professional liability policy to cover the booth licensee; 4. the applicant shall be responsible for operating his or her work space in full compliance with these rules. 4 MCAR S 10.119 Requirements for maintaining a salon or booth license. The following requirements shall be met by all salons and booths: A. the licensee shall continuously comply with all applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes and rules; B. the manager shall advise the office of a change in name of the salon in writing, including both new and old name and 17 16 l,) the salon shall not be used for any residential 4. The manager shall ensure that no unlicensed individual purpo at any time; provides any cosmetology service in the salon. 2. the salon shall be completely separated from the 5. The manager shall maintain, on the salon premises, the residential areas. There from floor to between shall be a permanent, solid partition, the salon and the residential work time records of each employee, as required by Minnesota ceiling, areas. Any door in this partition shall be kept closed at all Statutes, section 177.30. Time records shall be provided upon written request to the licensee or to the office. times; 6. The manager shall ensure that all equipment required by these rules is operational and maintained in proper working condition, that adequate supplies are in stock at all times, and that sanitation and safety requirements are met. 4 MCAR S 10.117 Additional requirements for specific types of salon licenses. In addition to the requirements of 4 MCAR SS 10.113-10.116, the requirements contained in A. -F. shall be met. A. Beauty salon and barber shop. A beauty salon and a barber shop may be operated in the some establishment, if the beauty salon occupies a physically separate area comprised of continuous footage, and is clearly identified as a beauty salon by a conspicuously displayed sign which states, "Beauty Salon" in letters at least two inches in height. B. Esthetician services. Esthetician services shall be provided only in a licensed cosmetology salon. Esthetician services shall not be offered in a manicurist salon. c. Mobile salons. 1. Mobile homes, motor homes, trailers, or any type of recreational vehicle which contains a beauty salon shall be permanently stationed at one location. 2. Salons in a vehicle which moves from one location to another shall not be allowed. 0Licensed health care facilities. I. It is not necessary for a licensed health care facility to have a licensed salon in order for nursing and patient care personnel or volunteers to wash, set, or trim residents' hair. 2. Licensed operators with certificates of identification may provide cosmetology services to residents. 3. If the licensed health care facility chooses to have a licensed salon on the premises, all the requirements for a salon shall be met. E. Salons in private residences. Salons may be established in private residences, if the following conditions are met: 3. all cosmetology services offered by the salon shall be available within the salon; 4. laundry tubs shall not be used as shampoo bowls; and 5. the primary residential toilet facilities shall not be used for salon clients. F. Requirements for a booth license. A Minnesota licensed cosmetologist or manicurist manager may lease work space from a licensed salon and operate that space as an independent business upon obtaining a booth license. An applicant for a booth license shall meet the following requirements: 1. the applicant shall hold a current Minnesota manager license; 2. the applicant shall provide documentation of leased work space from a licensed Minnesota salon. The work space shall be at least 50 square feet for a cosmetologist or 35 square feet for a manicurist. The lease shall include provisions regarding responsibility for keeping records of hours worked by the booth licensee, maintenance responsibilities of the booth licensee, use of salon equipment, purchase of supplies, professional liability insurance coverage, and other agreements reached by the parties; 3. the applicant shall provide evidence of coverage by professional liability insurance in the amount required for salon licensees. It shall be acceptable for the salon owner's professional liability policy to cover the booth licensee; 4. the applicant shall be responsible for operating his or her work space in full compliance with these rules. 4 MCAR S 10.119 Requirements for maintaining a salon or booth license. The following requirements shall be met by all salons and booths: A. the licensee shall continuously comply with all applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes and rules; B. the manager shall advise the office of a change in name of the salon in writing, including both new and old name and 17 16 TMo CITE/ CW OIRECTORATE oO 0,. •.O -OF PUBLIC WORKS ' MEMORANDUM 012 0 �^ • JBIIC 44 L70J FROM D.P.W. TO -- ACTION �- INFO. SUBJECT VARIANCE FOR 901 OVERTON DRIVE N.E./ CLARIFICATION OF HOME OCCUPATION DEFINITION Appeals Commission Members - There was a question raised at the City Council meeting on June 20, 1983 on the relationship of the Cosmetology Rules of the State of Minnesota and the City's home occupation requirements. The specific issue had to do with the state and city definition of living space vs. accessory space in an at- tached garage. The home occupation ordinance, 205.02(28) addresses the fact that all home occupations must -be carried on within the dwelling.uniV and not from an accessory building and is clearly incidental to the residential use. The R-1 (single family) zone specifically lays out two setback requirements from other residential dwellings on a side lot line. That of an accessory building (of which an --attached garage is included) of 5' from the lot line and that of the living space of 10' from the lot line. Since home occupations cannot operate within accessory buildings, it. has been interpreted that the occupation should be operated within the set- back of the living area (which is 10 ft.). Most home occupations, may infact, be operationg-out of space that is used both as a business as well as family living space (i.e. - studies, living rooms,, basement space, etc.). The City Code defines Uriing area as those spaces which are usually and customarily used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type of accessory space. In most cases, home occupations require more continual use of space by family members and could be interpreted as family purpose. In comparing the State Rules for cosmetology with the City Code on Home occupation, we don not perceive any conflict in interpretation. The State only restricts ,the space being used in the home to one purpose (that of a salon); it cannot be used for any residential purpose (i:e. sleeping, cooking, and other residential functions). They do not define living area. The City Code does not restrict the use of -space of a living area to be used as a home occupation to only one use. The code allows multi use of the space for any family purpose. In the case of 901 Overton Drive N.E., the staff has interpreted t6d_ code to allow home occupation as part of the living area of a dwelling. The use would require a variance to the setback in order to allow its operation the present accessory building. City of Fridley APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gabel called the Appeals Commission meeting of June 28, 1983 to order at 7: 35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Patricia Gabel, Jim Plemel, Alex Barna, Jean Gerou, Donald Betzold (late) Others Present: Darrell Clark; City of Fridley Charles Peugh, Signcrafters, 7775 Main Street N.E. John Pomaville, Viking Chevrolet, 7501 Highway 65 Mark Dooley, 5581 Matterhorn Drive N.E. Colin T. Gerrety, 6573 Arthur Street N.E. Glenn Van Hulzen,-901 Overton Drive N.E. Dick Kramer, 920 Overton Drive N.E. Carolyn Doyle, 921 Overton Drive N.E. Mike Gifford, Lawrence Sign Company, Burnsville APPROVAL OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1983: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to approve the minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. (Continued Item) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 214 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF A FREE STANDING SIGN FROM THE MAXIMUM OF 80 SQ FT TO 371 SQ FT.; TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF ONE FREE STANDING SIGN FROM THE MAXIMUM OF 25 FT. TO 47 FT. AND THE SECOND FREE STANDING SIGN FROM 25 FT. TO 36 FT.; TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF TWO DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FROM THE MAXIMUM OF 4 SQ. FT. TO 7 SQ. FT. AND IN- CREASE THE SIZE OF A THIRD DIRECTIONAL SIGN FROM 4 K. FT. TO 24 SQ. FT.; AND TO DECREASE THE SETBACK FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DIRECTIONAL SIGN FROM THE MINIMUM OF 10 FT. TO 2 FT.; ALL LOCATED ON PARCELS 4350, 4360, N11 OF SECTION 12, THE SAME BEING 7501 VIRON ROAD N.E. (Request by WV4"e rhavrnIPc lCharlas Peuah . 7775 Main St. N.E., Fridley, MN 55432) MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to remove this Item from the Table. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Peugh, Mr. Dooley and Mr. Pomaville were present for this matter. Mr. Dooley explained the request is for an I.D. sign by GM which would be 15' X 15' and 47 feet high, a trucks products -sign and two directional signs. He said the present (37 foot high) sign is obsolete and difficult to see from the freeway when approaching from the North. He also said there are trees about 1/2 block down that hinder the present sign. He further stated the I.D. sign is.the primary sign and, if they had to, they would eliminate the trucks sign. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 2 Ms. Gabel asked about the I.D. sign. Mr. Dooley said it would say GM Chevrolet on top, Viking in the middle and the GM insignia underneath that. He said their present sign is 343 sq. feet and they are asking for 250 sq. ft. but the height of the sign is their primary interest. Ms. Gabel -said she checked with other cities regarding their sign code, i.e. Bloomington permits 180 sq. ft. including wall signage; Roseville is 175 sq. ft. for thorofares. Mr. Dooley said they would forego the Trucksign for the primary sign and said their present sign is 35 ft. high and they want 47 feet. Ms. Gabel noted that the total square footage of the primary sign is 241 sq. ft. including the 410' GM logo. Mr. Barna asked if a smaller sign could be made of the same design and Mr. Dooley said not of the I.D. sign. Ms. Gabel asked why the two directional signs are larger than the code. Mr. Plemel asked where the signed would be placed and Ms. Gabel said they would be placed in the front where the two driveways are. Mr. Peugh said the signs are for Body Shop and Service & Parts and 7 sq. feet is the smallest they are made. Ms. Gabel felt the existing 24 square feet of directional sign was totally covered by trees and of no value and questioned the placement of the sign. Mr. Barna felt that a 7 square feet sign placed on the east side rather than the west side of the driveway would be more visable and suggested having three 7 square ft. signs, eliminating the 24 square ft. sign. Ms. Gabel felt the primary sign was still too large at 241 sq. ft. and said that GM has to deal with municipalities and cities all over the country. Mr. Peugh said the custom-made signs are much more expensive, they have to pay for them. Mr. Dooley said that GM gives them a program to work with and they will contribute to the cost and provide the maintenance of the sign. Mr. Plemel asked about the 47 ft. height. Mr. Dooley said they need that especially going north on Highway 65. Mr. Peugh said 42 ft. is the next step down. Mr. Clark suggested putting the I.D. sign where the Truck sign was going to be. Mr. Dooley explained that there are trees Is block down that block visibility and they need the height of the primary sign. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:03 P.M. Mr. Plemel said he drives by Viking Chevrolet twice a day and does not think that the size of the sign will bother him and that.he would be in favor if they could reduce the height from 47 ft. to 42 ft. for the ID sign, eliminate the Truck, keep the two directional signs and have everything on the building painted over. Mrs. Gerou said she did not have any problem with 47 ft. but felt the I.D. sign was a little large and that she would not like to see the big directional sign and place of the directional sign on the other side of the driveway for better visibility. Mr. Betzold refrained from commenting as he came in late to the meeting. Ms. Gabel said she understood the agreement with GM and the 241 sq. ft., that she did not like it but Viking was willing to forego the Truck sign and agreed that you could not see the one directional sign. Mr. Dooley said they would be willing to move that directional sign or eliminate it and that originally it served its purpose (the parts & service sign). Mr. Plemel asked if the sign over the overhead doors was going to stay (service) and Mr. Peugh said it would. Mr. Barna said he would like to see the 24 sq. ft: traded for a 7 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Peugh said that sign is in good shape and has been maintained since 1971. Mr. Dooley said they would be willing to do three 7 sq. ft. signs. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 3 After further discussion, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Plemel, Mr. Barna and Mrs. Gerou agreed with three 7 sq. ft. signs, the elimination of the Truck sign and the 47 ft. height of the primary sign. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, approval of the variance request to increase the size of a free standing sign from the maximum of 80 sq. ft. to 241 sq. ft; to increase the height of a free standing sign from the maximum of 25 ft. to 47 ft.; to increase the size of the three directional signs from 4 sq. ft. to 7 sq. ft.; and to decrease the setback from right-of-way for a directional sign from the minimum of 10 ft. to 2 ft.; all located on Parcels 4350, 4360, N1 of Section 12, the same being 7501 Viron Road N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, with the stipulations that the Trucks sign shall be eliminated, the 24 sq. ft. directional sign shall be eliminated and the Parts & Service directional sign shall be moved to the other side of the driveway. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE EXCEPT FOR ONE ABSTENTION, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. (Sent Back From Council) VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE LIVING SIDE OF A HOUSE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FT. TO 5 FT. TO ALLOW PART OF A CONVERTED GARAGE TO BE USED FOR A BEAUTY SHOP, LOCATED ON LOT 18, BLOCK 4, BROOK - VIEW TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 901 OVERTON DRIVE N.E. (Request by Glenn Van Hulzen, 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, NN 55432) MOTION by W. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:17 P.M. Mr. Clark said he was not sure they needed a public hearing for this item as it was sent back from the Council to the Commission to reconfirm or reconsider the interpretation of living space or accessory building and that staff checked the State rules and that it would be possible to interpret the State rules that the beauty shop must be operated from the living space from the house. Mr. Clark felt they could not consider that valid in the City zoning laws as it would disrupt their home occupation definition and they would have to allow machine shops, body shops, mechanics,etc. He said the staff feels the first interpretation is the proper inter- pretation. He further stated that staff spoke with Mr. Herrick°s office (to Mr. Neumann) who did say that Council could approve the variance for a specific use for a defined period of time. Ms. Gabel stated the only issue here is the definition of living space. Mr. Betzold said the State rules have a fairly narrow definition and that certain parts of the home are not living space; the City looks at whole home as living space and it is their job to interpret the City Code. Mr. Plemel asked if this was to change their thinking on the lot line. Ms. Gabel explained that they are being asked to determine whether or not this is living space and the staff has interpreted this as living space which is why it requires a variance and they are asking if the Commission agrees with this interpretation. Mr. Plemel said if it is an accessory building, it can be 5 feet from the lot line and if it is living area, it has to be 10 feet from the lot line and that he concurs with staff in that he considers it living area. ADDeals Commission Meeting June 28, 1983 Page 4 Mr. Betzold asked what the result would be if it was not determined as living space. Mr. Clark said then no variance would be necessary. He said the interpretation of the code is consistent, garages are accessory buildings, that they have allowed home occupation in living spaces, not garages -- home occupations cannot take place in an accessory building. He further explained that if the area is going to be a beauty shop and it is a living space, then it needs a variance and to ask if living space was properly defined in the beginning. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing for the purpose of voting to determine the issue of living space on this matter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that, upon the Commission's review of their original determination of living space in this matter, it has been determined and affirmed that their motion was based on the issue of living space and this is living space. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the public hearing to determine whether or not there is additional information available at this time regarding the Commission's original recommendation to the City Council on this matter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:33 P.M. Mr. Van Hulzen, Mr. Kramer and Mrs. Doyle were present for this matter. Mr. Van Hulzen felt it was an interesting approach to designate a variance for a particular purpose (beauty shop) and felt it would be a compromise satisfactory to everyone. Mrs. Doyle said she attended the City Council meeting and that she still does not care for the 5 feet from the lot line but that she spoke further with Mr. and Mrs. Van Hulzen and she is a little more comfortable with the beauty shop but asked that it be restricted to the Van Hulzens only and that Mrs. Van Hulzen promised not to have the beauty shop chair in the front window. Mr. Clark asked if she objected to the living space and Mrs. Doyle said she would not want a precedent set and is willing to compromise. Mr. Clark said the staff has a hard time keeping track when homes change ownership and they can keep track on a complaint basis and they could grant -a variance for a specific use for a specific period of time. Mr. Van Hulzen said the State Board licenses beauty shops annually and they will have a very re- stricted beauty shop. Mr. Betzold asked if they would be in violation of the code if they did business 7 days a week and Mr. Clark said they would not. Ms. Gabel asked if they could grant the variance exclusively to the Van Hulzens and have the Council work out the legal. Mrs. Doyle suggested having the Van Hulzens come in annually. Mr. Clark said they could have a letter requesting extension for another year and could not foresee a problem with, the Council. acting on an annual basis. Mr. Kramer spoke in favor of the variance and believed it will be a very restricted type of business and he is not concerned about traffic and that he can see the house out of his front window and thought that the changes will look nice. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Pave 5 Mr. Betzold questioned the hardship in this matter. Mr. Van Hulzen said the main hardship is that his wife wishes to take care of the family and still work, that she needs the job and this is the least expensive and most economical way to accomplish this. He said other options would cause considerable disturbance and expense; the entryway would then have to be through the back yard into the basement and through the laundry room and the pool in the back yard would have to be fenced off. He felt this would also be additional disturbance to the neighbors and the existing area is the right size. Ms. Gabel felt the hardship is now defined much better and stated she had visited the area and there would be a safety factor with customers and the pool and the construction -costs are obvious and this appears to be a better way. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50 P.M. Mr. Plemel said the original objection of the neighbor's dissatisfaction has now been removed in this matter and he has no problem with the variance. Mrs. Gerou and Mr. Barna concurred. Mr. Betzold felt the additional information has clarified the issues. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Garou, that the Appeals Commission has reconsidered tai s earlier recommendation to the City Council, and based upon additional information presented that was not available at the last hearing on this matter, the Appeals Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance request to reduce the side yard setback on the living side of a house from the required 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop, located on lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace, the same being 901 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley Minnesota with the stipulation that this variance be restricted to the use of the Van Hulzens only, that this is granted for a period of one year and to be reviewed annually at the same time the State license if renewed, by the City Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THIS MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ?0 REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 48.7 FT., TO 42.0 FT. ON LOT 27 AND THE S12 OF LOT 28, BLOCK 4, OAK GROVE ADDITION_, THE SAME BEING 6573 ARTHUR STREET N.E., TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING (Request by Colin T. Gerrety, 6573 Arthur St. N.E., Fridley, HN 55432) MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:55 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADKIZISTRATWE STAFF REPORT 65T3 Arthur Street 5-3- &. pMIC pORPOSE SERM BY RBQDIRZKW: Section 205.153 (2) requires that In areas with front yard setbacks greater than the sinimum, the average of the setbacks for buildings within 100 feet on either side &ball prevail, with a deviation allowed of six feet more or less. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 6 tublic purpose served by this requirement is to ensure that any new structures do not greatly impede the front yard "line of sight" for the existing house sites. S. STATED BAHDSEIP: vdith two children presently and one due in January, we have outgrown our house. Ve have priced houses on the market and cannot afford to move and we do like our present location. Building an addition would give us adequate room for a growing family at a price we can afford. ,Our house is a two bedroom with 768 square feet. Also, adding onto the front is economical and more logical and de31reable than going any other direction." C. AMU ISTRATIVE STAFF AEVIEY: In 19781 the petitioner had planned to convert the existing attached garage to living area and build a new garage off the alley. They have since changed their minds and now would like to add onto the front of the house. To do this they will need a front yard variance. Yith the proposed addition, the structure will be 42 feet from the front lot line. The required setback for this lot Is 48 feet due to the large front yard setbacks the neighboring structures have established. If the Board approves this request, we have no recommended stipulations. Mr. Gerrety was present. Mr. Clark explained that the petitioner is still using the single -car garage and presented aerial photos of the area. He said there is no real set pattern of setbacks for the whole block. Mr. Gerrety said he requested 18 feet but will actually be using 16 feet - he wanted to be on the safe side as he did the measurements himself. Ms. Gabel asked what the space is to be used for. Mr. Gerrety said they want to convert the living room into a dining room and have a new bedroom and living room and they have discussed the possibility of just adding the bedroom. Mr. Barna noted it would be an L-shaped house and make it easier to tie the roof in. Mr. Gerrety he will have a contractor do this and everything will be tied in. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to close the public hearing. UPOF! A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:03 P.M. Mr. Betzold felt the variance should be granted as the public purpose did not have much application in this matter because of the foliage and varying setbacks of the other homes in the area. Mr. Barna concurred. Mr. Plemel said he could see the need because of the growing family. Mrs. Gerou and Ms. Gabel agreed. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the variance request to reduce the required front yard setback from 48.7 feet to 42.0 feet on Lot 27 and the Sz of Lot 28, Block 4, Oak Grove Addition, the same being 6573 Arthur Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, to allow for an addition to the front of the dwelling. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -i Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 7 4. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 214.045 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR FREE STANDING SIGNS FROM 80 SQ. FT. TO 183 SQ. FT., TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREE STANDING SIGN ON LOT 1, _BLOCK 1, COMMERCE PARK ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7600 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. (Request by Kenneth Ingram, P.O. Box 1242, Mpls., MN 55440) MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:05 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STIFF REPORT 7600 University Avenue N.B. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED By REQUIREMENT: Section 214.046, (2) B. requires a maximum size of 80 square feet for a tree standing sign. Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollution and excessive use of signs in commercial areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: *Need identification on Osborne Road and this is the standard size sign for the company.• C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: On September 119 1978, the City Issued Sign Permit 1407 to Western Oil to erect a 75 square foot (approximately 6' x 12.51) free standing sign. This was a permitted sign and no variance was needed. Owner now requests an additional free standing sign (which is allowed by the Sign Ordinance) which is in excess of 80 square feet (which is not allowed by the Sign Ordinance). If approved, the total square footage would total 183 square feet. Our records show that the service station across from this service station has a 60 square foot free standing sign. Staff has no stipulations if the Board approves this request. Mr. Gifford, Lawrence Sign Company, was -present for this matter. Mr. Clark said the Staff did come up with one stipulation in that they would like to work with the petitioner to have more landscaping done. Mr. Gifford said he was called on short notice to attend the hearing as Mr. Ingram could not be present. He learned from 'Mr. Ingram that the home office has requested this sign and Mr. Gifford said he was unable to contact the home office for further information. He said on a corner lot the code allows for two signs but with a maximum of 80 sq. ft and they would like to get side street exposure, especially on a street with a lot of traffic. He further stated that the types of signs Western has now is kind of a problem as the company is in a transitional period with their signs and they are currently changing all their stations. He said it is basically a price sign with the name on the top panel. Appeals Commission Meeting - June 28, 1983 Page 8 Ms. Gabel noted that prices are currently on the other sign. Mr. Gifford said stations like Standard Oil do not need a larger sign like the smaller, independent companies. He said the smaller independents do not have the 'power to compete and their price signs are the way they compete. Mr. Betzold asked about getting Mr. Ingram to a hearing. Mr. Gifford said he would like to bring back the Commission's recommendations and it is a practice to have side lot signage with a corner lot. Mr. Betzold.questioned the hardship. Mr. Gifford said the hardship is the square footage and they are competing with Amoco. Mr. Betzold felt everyone could see their sign. Mr. Gifford said the smaller stations survive on pricing and service and said they could have an alternate request for a larger sign on University Avenue. Ms. Gabel felt they are presently very noticeable. Mr. Gifford -said one of their problems is that the name Western is going out and pricing coming in -- price larger and name smaller. Ms. Gabel stated if the Commission gave .them a larger sign, Standard would be in requesting one, also. She said she was not sure if someone thought this through enough because of the transition and changes with Western and felt there was a good deal of vision with the present sign and felt the variance should not be granted because of that and the possibility of another variance request. Mr. Gifford felt a sign is needed on the side street. Mr. Clark said he discussed signed with the Champlin station and their pricing signs are integral part of the overall pylon sign. Ms. Gabel noted they refused the pricing sign for Union 76 recently. Mr. Gifford asked about wall signs and pump canopy signs. Mr. Clark said if it is a mansard canopy they are a wall sign and a free standing canopy on the pump island is probably a free standing sign. Mr. Clark suggested continuing the matter to find out what Western's 'theme' is going to be and what the changes are to be. Ms. Gabel said the signs could be made smaller. Mr. Gifford said there would more cost involved with smaller signs. Ms. Gabel noted on their current sign the prices are not included and they could come back with a plan that includes both signs and it is policy not to grant variances that are extremely excessive. for gas stations. Mr. Plemel said he was inclined to think signage is adequate for their needs and it is.visible from both directions. Mr. Betzold said he would like the owner present for this matter. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to table this agenda item until notified by the petitioner. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1983, ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deb Niznik, Recording Secretary V 8 0011 "'`TL. !R'z= OF JULY 11, 1983 PAGE..9 MON OF RIM I i1-l"I - '1► Q IISSION f TARLFn 6/20/831 MOTION by Counci.n ette to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. U a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carrW unanimously. MMUAME TO REDUCE mFiF SIDE YARD TO ALIM PART OF A CDNVE= GARAGE M HE USED FOR A BEAUTY SHOP - RECX7EST BY GI.F�1 VAN HULZEN (RE URNED '1D APPEAUS COKMISSION 6/20/831-a 061 ®ut'e irb 0 Mayor Nee stated this item regarding a variance request by Glenn Van Hulzen is now back before the Council, after being referred to the Appeals Commission for clarification of the definition of living space. . Mr. Flora, Pulic Works Director, stated the Appeals Commission has concurred with the staff's definition and clarified this area as living space. Mr. Flora stated Mrs. Doyle, who had objected to the variance, was present at the Appeals Commission meeting and stated she had talked further with the Van Hulzen's and is more comfortable with the beauty shop with the condition the variance be granted only to the Van Hulzen's and for a period of one year and to be reviewed annually. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the Appeals Commission is recommending this space be allowed for a beauty shop, which is a home occupation, and this can be conducted only in living spaces. He stated he felt the compromise is a good solution, as it allows the use requested by the home owner, and gives some satisfaction to joining property owners so they would have a voice in any future reques s should the property change hands. Councilman Hamernik stated he had conversations with both the petitioner and Mrs. Doyle and he both agree this is an acceptable solution and staff feels this can be handled. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission to grant the variance r uest to reduce the side yard setback on the living space of a house fra4the required 10 feet to 5 feet to allow a converted garage to be used fo a beauty shop at 901 Overton Drive, with the stipulation that this variance be restricted to the use of the Van Hulzen's only and is granted for a period of one year and concurent with renewal of the beauty shop license, the petitioner would provide the Council with a request for continuation of t variance at which time the Council can review any concerns that may ave arisen in that period and may elect to discuss it with the petitioner. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NOTION b man Fitzpatrick to waive the first reading of this o n e and approve it on first reading. Seconded by Councilman 10 Upon a roll call vote, councilman Fitzpatrick, councilman Barnette, yor Nee, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Hamernik all voted in favo , and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the first reading/of this ordinance and approve it on first reading. Seconded by Councilgafh Schneider. Councilman Schneider stated he does have a problem ith Section 6.02, and was concerned if all three of these proposed ndments could be taken separately. Mr. Bill Hunt stated he felt the Charter Camr9ssion saw this as a package item and felt Sections 6.02 and 6.04 balan off Section 6.01. He stated if the Council wishes, he can get an opi from the Charter Commission, but felt they saw these as a package i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick t table this item to July 25, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee stated he would not beresent at the July 25 meeting and it was brought to the Council's atte ion Minnesota statutes provide the amendment has to be approved the Mayor and by an unanimous vote of the Council. Councilman Fitzpatrick th withdrew his motion, with the permission of his seconder, Councilman ider. Mayor Nee suggested a to could be taken on the first reading which would allow Councilman Schn der time to clarify if these items had to be taken as a package or if ey could be taken separately, prior to the second reading of the ordi UPON A ROLL CAL VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION FOR FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE, Co cilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Schneider, Mayor Nee, -Councilman Bar tte, and Councilman Hamernik all voted in favor and Mayor (�red a "_lamotion carried unanimously. 11 ' 11 A Mr. F ora, Public Works Director, stated the Council approved a special use rmit, 977-04 in 1977 for Apache Camping Center which allowed the s and service of recreational vehicles and a limited outdoor display of two units. Flora stated, in conjunction with the special use permit, there were a number of stipulations and, essentially, four of these have not been complied with and the City has attempted to obtain compliance for a number of years. Mr. Flora stated the request now before the =1for is for an addition to the original special use permit in order to the display of six units, and the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this request. CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Glenn Van Hulzen 901 Overton Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Van Hulzen: CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1983 ACTION TAKEN NOTICE On July 11, 198 .3 , the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance to use Chart of a convertpd gar_ for a with the stipulations listed below: beauty parlor. 1. This variance is granted for one year, with annual review at the time the State license for a beauty shop is reviewed. 2. This variance for a beauty shop on this property is restricted to the Van Hulzen's only. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. )LB/de Sincerely, RROL L. BOARDMAN City Planner )lease review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return me copy to the Cit of ridley. icu with action a e 1 STATE -OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS GzC, 835 In the Flatter of request to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow part of a converted garage VARIANCE to be used for a beauty parlor at 901 Overton Drive N.E. Glenn Van Hulzen , Owner The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 11th day of July , 1983 , on a petition for a variance pursuant to t� City of ri ey s oning Ordinance, for the following described property! .. Lot 18, Block 4, Brookview Terrace IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: This variance granted to Van Hulzen's only. When the property changes hands, the variance is no longer valid. (ownership) 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 an 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 15th , day of July , 19 83 . DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SIDNEY C. N AN, CITY CLERK,,,..n Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and -shA31" considered void if not used within that period.�� 4;. 10 rkO"►, I� .11i i.S �i► �/ i� \/�y��l\�_� �� 71►I]I�!} �� yly �� V; �� /�IVI•T)!-w MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. /: s ►. �� yep �� ■ Is ]&( ' i �� • ��i►1/�i�y7i� : i.lj �� Mayor Nee stated this item regarding a variance request by Glenn Van Hulzen is now back before the Council, after being referred to the Appeals Commission for clarification of the definition of living space. Mt. Flora, clic Works Director, stated the A!.ppeals Commission has concurred with the staff's definition and clarified this area as living space. Mr. Flora stated Mrs. Doyle, who had objected to the variance, was present at the Appeals Commission meeting and stated she had talked further with the Van Hulzen's and is more comfortable with the beauty shop with the condition the variance be granted only to the Van Hulzen's and for a period of one year and to be reviewed annually. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the Appeals Commission is recommending this space be allowed for a beauty shop, which is a home occupation, and this can be conducted only in living spaces. He stated he felt the compromise is a good solution, as it allows the use requested by the home owner, and gives some satisfaction to th adjoining property owners so they would have a voice in any future requests should the property change hands. Councilman Hamernik stated he had conversations with both the petitioner and Mrs. Doyle and hey both agree this is an acceptable solution and staff feels this can be handled. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission to grant the variance request to reduce the side yard setback on the living space of a house fromthe required 10 feet to 5 feet to allow a converted garage to be used for a beauty shop at 901 Overton Drive, with the stipulation that this variance be restricted to the use of the Van Hulzen's only and is granted for a period of one year and concurent with renewal of the beauty shop license, the petitioner would provide the Council with a request for continuation of tis variance at which time the Council can review any concerns that may have arisen in that period and may elect to discuss it with the petitioner. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7'wVR"'T - MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the first reading of this ordinance and approve it on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. PBGE_AD . Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Barnette, Mayor Nee, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Hamernik all voted in favor, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10 COMIDERMON OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMMING SBMONS 6.01, 6.02 AND 6.04 OF TO CITY QZ= OF ZIE CITY OF FRIDLF.'Y (C_w OmE SECTION F. MISC.1: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the first reading of this ordinance and approve it on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider stated he does have a problem with Section 6.02, and was concerned if all three of these proposed amendments could be taken separately. Mr. Bill Aunt stated he felt the Charter Commission saw this as a package item and felt Sections 6.02 and 6.04 balance off Section 6.01. He stated if the Council wishes, he can get ari cpinion f -®m the Charter Commission, but felt they saw these as a package item. MMON by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table this item to July 25, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee stated he would not be present at the July 25 meeting and it was brought to the Council's attention tat Minnesota statutes provide the amendment has to be approved by the Mayor and by an unanimous vote of the Council. Councilman Fitzpatrick then withdrew his motion, with the permission of his seconder, Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee suggested a vote could be taken on the first reading which would allow Councilman Schneider time to clarify if these items had to be taken as a package or if they could be taken separately, prior to the second reading of the ordinance. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION FOR FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Schneider, Mayor Nee, Councilman Barnette, and Councilman Hamernik all voted in favor and Mayor nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the Council approved a special use permit, #77-04 in 1977 for Apache Camping Center which allowed the sales and service of recreational vehicles and a limited outdoor display of two units. Mr. Flora stated, in conjunction with the special use permit, there were a number of stipulations and, essentially, four of these have not been complied with and the City has attempted to obtain compliance for a number of years. Mr. Flora stated the request now before the Council is for an addition to the original special use permit in order to slow for the display of six units, and the Planning Cannission has reo=nended denial of this request. s2(!83s UFFiCE OF COUNTY RECOROtK STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF AVOW I hereby certify that the within instM ment was filed in this office for rectfl2 on the_ AUG 1 �A.D., 19__ ao'clock Land was duly recordN In booms page /W - rd By .. 2:��M aha"z:Deputy '"9�� SS�G3�-