VAR 09-66J.
0 W-04
i
APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OIC APPEALS AND CITY COUNCIL
FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VAnMbE %N REQUIREMENTS OF
CERTAIN ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
(Applicant to complete items I, 2, 3)
1. Name and Address of Applicant,
2. Legal Description of Property (also general location, such as;"north
east corner of 64th Avenue and 5th Street" or 6415 Fifth Street")
_ f, %
WAMi
3. Describe the variance requested. (Attach Plat or Survey of Property
showing location of proposed building, etc., also adjoining properties
and ownership within 200' of sai&.property.)
ell
I r/A. MW -0
4. Comments by administrative official denying original request for building
permit or other permit. (To be completed by administrative official.
Appropriate ordinances and section of ordinances to be cited.)
-2-
5. Notice of Rearing appeared in Official Newspaper on the following
dates: September 14 & 21, 1966
(must be at least once 10 days before meeting copy of notice to be
attached).
6. Board Members notified of meeting by mailing, of notices — 9-9-66.
(List Members, Date Notified, and "Yes" or "NdI for plans to attend
hearing).
Name Dat Plan to Attend
Don P. Brimer, 941 Overton Drive.NZ, (Request)
All members notified of meeting by mailing of notice 9-9-66
7. Person making appeal and the following property owners having property
within 200' notified:
By Phone Notified by
Name Date or Mail (Initial)
Don P. Brizmer, 941 Overton Drive N.E. M 9-9-66
Brent Doyle, 921 Overton Drive N.E. M 9-9-66
onn-xe—:1.E . M 9-9=6r-
Lillian
-9=F6Lillian Westin, 940 Overton Drive N.E. M 9-9-66
Overton ft ive-b3:8 . —K ---
Robert Culver, 940 Pandora Drive N.E. M 9-9-66
George Kemble, 901 Over on Drive gf:E". M 9-9-6b —
8. The Following Board Members and interested parties were present at the
Hearing: September 28, 1966
BOARD MEMERS
-3-
OTHER PARTIES;
NAME
9. Opinions and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEALS;
ADDRESS
10. For Above Recommendations Against Recommendations
11. Action by City Council and Date;
Slr..4
'3111/"ONIN.73NON3 Mic
"Fop - Fv aur �q PRA ZIA in 9 5V ',DUCI p!VS'V5' ,10' /1[.%J' 'bv.- 71 Z-11F7MVI; 71T/SM 110,D.V,9 c LI'miall 11rj" tj
S/ S/1 it �VV PIJJP� rr" -r
l
v
j
17 71,
vr
r, r r
err S.�h6q,ql rZg.
;n"N I "If
Lu'11194-f PUV7
- 0
AC
vr
IN"
tN
r, r r
err S.�h6q,ql rZg.
;n"N I "If
Lu'11194-f PUV7
- 0
AC
EMM of APPQUG of the CLW
of nWley wjU mft An U Chaz&ws of the City VaU at
7s3® o0clod P®V4,e tewbm 280 Q to amwMw the
:Eouowuq mattwel
AMVGM dMJXAMtobe howd with ®�o abase
wlU be howd at this mntlMo
PublAm hs Me 19"
330 1966
1.
BOARD OF APPEALS MMMS • SHMNSER 28, 1966
The Hftting was called to order at 7s40 P.M. by Chairman Hawrocki
bZK=S PRESENT: Nawrocki, Saunders, Fitzpatrick
MMMS ABSENT: Goodrich
Mr. and Pica. BrImer were present and Mr. and Mrs. B. R. Doyle, 921 Overton
Drive were present.
It was pointed out by the Brimers that when they had the property surveyed
showing the house in place, the house was only 31� feet from the property
line instead of the 35 feet that it was thought to be. Therefore, the
variance that they were requesting would be from 31k feet to 27;k feet
instead of as advertised. Mr. Doyle stated that he objected to both the
side yard setback variance and the front yard setback variance, since he
felt that it would block his view from the bedroom window.
MOTUN by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Saunders, to recommend to the Council
that the Variance be granted from 5 feet to 3 feet on the side and froom
.� e -
314_feet to 27�a feet in front,_ noting that the advertisement for the
v_
Public �eari stated that the front setbackwas from 35 fest to 31 feet
and that the actual survey of the property showed that the house was
Jl feet ftm the front grope=tr ine instead of 35 feet. Upon a
voice vote, there being no nays, Chairman Nawrocki�declared the motion
carried.
OF FRIDTEY. XWZS0XA 1963,, RZVISED DECEMR 31, 1964. BY WAIVER OF FRCHT
os a v mar a najwdww p _& nu. 8 jvvv ® ,.outR AVi nus 1Y%wxn&Aw&v n&m aeAi "D a n&=naaviln9
8
Mere was no one present for or against the Variance. The Board discussed
the fact that there was a great deal of wet land to the rear of this property
and -that it would appear that this was the only location for the proposed
structure. It also was stated in the application to the Board of Appeals,
that the petitioner was also the owner of the properties adjoining the said
property within 200 feet.