Loading...
VAR 09.761 _ i.a.ty of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS �� •_ _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. � 1 PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC, , o 1 { /••-i i CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 `••-•�' ,•, 61R -W. -3a54 t SUl+JlCi 07 We f (� D OF APPEALS APPLICATION TO ELAN NWdHER 910--F23 FlLK, 1 PATE 3/21/75 PAGT Os-`^`— 1 2 APPPOVED BY 000 flame -7-' Do w Address V7 r(�? riPr-/r" Phone ' j' 7/ -df� Legal Description Lot No. /� Block `% No. Tract or Addn. /��1 7 %� /e6 kaI� ea a i-rec e- e- - c2 o`� �dCd�. / ,Vh Variance Request(s); including stated hardshi-R---lattach-plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., e -applicable) J'C L'-c� eQ P T a., t- e 5 C-4 Ilk T 0 e) n.1 ,5- i t a- S / !-Z ,. GU r o "u' l? r G 1 r 1 L' vE C- e-, f' e ei U L I- N- G 6 aim M I � y� [� O � /Y/ � er re, Date '7 Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. Signa re Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date . , City of 14 rid I cy :.UHJtG - AT THE TOP OF: THE TWINS APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS ' ___COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. (Staff Report) r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. r---� CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NIAMErt Illy. DA It PAGE OF APPIMVED Ur �- 612.560.3450 910-F23 1 3/21/75 2 2 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by �'®� 7 ' �W List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Date To Attend Name Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom ` Name �Date Phone or Mail Notified Mr. & Mrs. -James Christie,6799 Overton t N.E. • Mr. & 7 6793 Overton N.E. Mrs. Leo Allender, 936 68th Avenue N.E. Mr. & N.E. Mrs. Donald Froom, 940 Pandora Drive N.E. N.E. Mr: Bernard J. Carlson, 970 Pandora Drive N.E. Konald Nisbet, 990 Pandora Drive N.E. Mr: & Mrs. James Bruder, 969 68th Avenue N.E. Robert Guist Avenue N.E. Mac: & Mrs: Donald Ault, 953 68th Avenue N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Koberf ionTzaK,Overton Drive N.L. Mr. & Mrs. Quentin Watts, 991 Overton Drive N.E. . Mr. & Mrs. Louis Mar.shall, 981 Overton Drive N7. Mr..& Mrs. Donald Beaudette, 961 Overton Drive N.E. Lillian V. Westin, 940 Overton Drive N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Edgar Breitenfeldt, 980 Overton Drive N. . Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Hildebrandt, 998 Overton Drive N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Solseth, 937 68th Avenue N.E.` OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, September 28, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for variances of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.053, 4, A, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 4.'5 feet, to allow the construction of an inground swimming pool, and Section 205.154, 3, to increase the 4 foot minimum height of a fence in the front yard to 6 feet in order to comply with the fence requirement of the Swimming Pool Ordinance, All located on Lot 12, Block 4, Brookview Terrace Second Addition, the same being 999 Overton Drive N:E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak,.999 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL 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. I � Yf%: ., I � i °� r. � I � I I I -� j'� � ! 1 I � I I I I i � I a I i I I I • FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 283 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:45 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMIBER 15, 1976 Mrs. Gabel referred to the second paragraph on page 11 and the statement she had made that it was encouraging. She explained she meant it was encouraging to see fees lowered where they were higher than the actual costs. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the minutes of the September 15, 1976 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried »nanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.0532 4, A; TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 4.5 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND SIMIMING POOL, AND SECTION 205.143, 32 TO INCREASE THE 4 FOOT MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO 6 FEET IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FENCE REQUIRM--ENT OF THE SWIMMING POOL ORDINANCE, ALL LOCATED ON LOT 12, BLOCK 4 BROOKVIE'rl TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak, 999 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, A. front yard setback of 35 feet; Section 205.143, 3 six foot fence requirement around swimming pools. Public purpose served is that the front yard fence and structure restrictions tend to keep front yards more open and aesthetically pleasing. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The front yard is the only place that the owner can construct a pool, and if he is allowed a pool he needs a six foot fence to meet the City Code pool specifications. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 2 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This front yard is not typical in that the house faces the side of the lot; therefore, the fence and pool will not be in the front yard now used as front yard. However, it would lie in front of the home just East of the applicants. Staff feels the variances should only be granted if the homeowner at 953 68th Avenue has no objection, since it would affect them the most. There is no logical compromise available. Mrs. Robert Tomczak was at the meeting to present the request, along with Mr. and Mrs. Dan Ault, 953 68th Avenue N.E., the adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Tomczak showed the Board a plat with a rough drawing, and explained what she and her husband wanted to do. She said that if Mr. and Mrs. Ault were not agreeable to the proposed plan, she and her husband agreed they would not build it. She asked Mr. Holden how far a pool had to be from the existing property line. Mr. Holden explained it was considered an accessory building so it would have to be at least 3' from the property line with a verifying survey, or 42 feet without, a survey. He said that since there was no verifying survey, it would have` to be 42 feet from the property line. Mrs. Tomczak stated that their existing fence was V-2 feet in from their property line, and would have to be extended. She explained they were proposing a 361 kidney -shaped pool, and showed how it would fit on their property and where the diving board would be. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a 3' deck requirement, and Mr. Holden replied there was. He said there was approximately 121 from the curb to the property, and another 42' to the pool edge, so there would be a total of about 162' from the curb to the pool. Mr. Ault stated that one of.his concerns was that the fence would obstruct the view, and there would be a problem going in and out of his driveway. Chairperson Schnabel asked what type of fence the petitioner was planning on putting up, and Mrs. Tomczak replied a board -on -board, the sane type they had at the present time. Mrs. Schnabel stated that chain-link fences were also legal at 61. Mr. Kemper said that this had been discussed several weeks ago, and it had been decided a chain-link fence was climbable. 'Mrs. Schnabel said it was the Building Inspectorfs feeling that a toddler would not climb a 61 fence. Mrs. Tomczak stated she didn't feel a chain-link fence was safe, and she didn't care for that idea. Mr. Barna commented that vertical board -on- board fences that gave no toehold were preferable. Mr. Ault said that another concern of his was if he would be allowed to paint or stain his side of the fence. He said that they hadn't yet reached an agree- ment with the Tomczaks regarding the fence in the back yard, and there was some concern about the fence in front. He explained that he would like to stain the fence to match his house, but the Tomczaks preferred to leave it natural. Chairperson Schnabel stated it was the property owners responsibility to maintain the fence, unless the fence was right on the property line. Mr. Holden said that if two neighbors put up a joint fence together, then they shared responsibility of the fence; in this case it would be the responsibility of the Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 3 owners. Chairperson Schnabel asked if adjacent property owners had any protection against an unsightly fence, and Mr. Holden replied that according to the complaint procedure the City Staff could discuss the matter with the adjacent property owners and try to settle any questions. Mrs. Gabel said that this seemed to be a matter of one person liking the fence stained and the other person liking the natural affect, and everyone was entitled to their preference. Mrs.Ault stated there would be a problem staining one side of the fence and not the other. Mrs. Tomczak said they could discuss that, but if the pool didn't go in the fence would never be stained. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the existing shrubbery would have to be removed if the fence was extended, and Mrs. Tomczak said she thought it would. She added that the two large lilac bushes would have to be removed, but she hoped the smaller shrubs could be transplanted. Chairperson Schnabel said one concern she had from a safety standpoint was the encroachment into this area as far as driving down the street was concerned. Mrs. Gabel asked how many feet were actually going to be added on to the fence going toward the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied about 3h-1- Mr. 3 2'.Mr. Kemper asked if there were any other variances granted on the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied there weren't any, and the houses were in a fairly straight line. Mr. Kemper commented this might be a rather severe visual encroachment for that street, and Mrs. Tomczak pointed out that they could.put up a 4' fence if they wanted to. Mr. Kemper stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to maintain an aesthetic open area, and this request was violating that. Mrs. Tomczak commented they had not known until this came up that their side yard was actually their front yard. Mrs. Schnabel asked how much traffic was generated on 68th*Avenue in terms of cars or children, and Mrs. Tomczak replied that a survey had been taken on Labor Day and in 96 hours there had been 300 cars. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. and Mrs. Ault if they had reached any kind of conclusion regarding their objections to this. Mr. Ault stated that they had a natural concern, but they didn't want to limit something that somebody else wanted to do. He said they wanted to be good neighbors but they didn't want the pool to detract from their property. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they had any particular feelings on the board -on -board fence being extended down versus a chain-link fence. Mr. Ault replied that they would prefer a fence similar to the existing fence, but their concern was about staining it so it would blend in with their house. Mrs. Ault added that she was also concerned about children being able to look down the street for cars if there was -a lot of snow piled up there. Mr. Ault stated that he had been under the impression that if he signed the release for the Tomczaks to build the pool, then he could stain the fence to match his house. Mrs. Tomczak said that was fine, but her husband's concern was that if the Aults moved then they would have to keep maintaining the fence. Chairperson Schnabel also pointed out that if the Tomczaks should sell their house, then the new property owner would also have to maintain the fence. She suggested that if the Tomczaks would be agreeable to allowing the neighbors to stain the fence, and they in turn were agreeable to the construction of the pool, perhaps they could reach a happy medium. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 4' Mrs. Gabel asked the Aults if they could specify what their feelings were. Mr. Ault replied that they had no objections to a pool, but they were concerned with the location and the view and the fence. He stated they did not want ,to object to someone doing something like that if the City agreed it would be in the best interest of the City and the property owners on the street, and he would leave it up to the Board. Mr. Kemper asked if they had the decision to build that pool, would they or would they not build it. Mr. Ault again stated they didn't object to someone building a pool, per se, but they were concerned with the location. He said he didn't know what impact it would have on his property, but he thought it might make it more difficult to sell. He added that they didn't want to be the ones to say yes or no, and felt it was some- thing the Board had to decide. Chairperson Schnabel asked if it would be less objectionable to the Aults from an aesthetic standpoint if in addition to staining the fence there was some planting along the side, and Mr. Ault replied that was what they would do anyway. Mrs. Schnabel asked if in addition to the aesthetics, they were also concerned about the safety factor. Mrs. Ault replied that as a mother she was concerned about the view being obstructed in the winter and the children not being able to see cars coming. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she felt 1212' would be ample room to plow the snow. Chairperson Schnabel stated that if the Board decided to approve the request and there was no dissention from the neighbors, Staff, or Board, the Tomczaks could proceed with construction. If there was some objection, she said, then the request would go to the City Council and it would be reviewed one more time, and their decision would become final. She explained that was why they wanted to know how the Aults felt about it before they took any action, and they wanted to make sure everybody had an ample opportunity to express their feelings. Mrs. Gabel asked when construction on this would be started if a variance was granted, and Mrs. Tomczak replied they would start next week. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they had talked to any of the other neighbors, and Mrs. Tomczak answered that she had talked to every neighbor within 200' and no one else expressed concern. Mrs. Ault asked how the pool was going to be enclosed, and Mrs. Tomczak showed her where the fence and gate would be. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they . would have to enter the pool through the gate also, and Mrs. Tomczak replied that was correct, there would be no direct access. Mr. Barna asked if the pool area could be seen from the kitchen window, and Mrs. Tomczak said no, only from the bedrooms. Mr. Barna asked how long they had been planning this, and Mrs. Tomczak replied since July, but they had just found out that their side yard was their front yard when they talked to Darrel Clark. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper stated he had a very severe concern about the amount of visual encroachment there would be along 68th. He said they would be moving a structure out to 12' from the curb, and it would be the only structure sticking out along the street for several blocks. Mr. Kemper said he had a strong concern that they would be seriously violating an ordinance that said that shouldn't be ' Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 done'in the City of Fridley. Page 5 Mrs. Schnabel asked if the fence across the street was 12' back, because in her mind that didn't seem like it was terribly close to the street.. Mr. Holden looked through the records and returned to say that there was no verifying survey for the house across the street from the Tomczaks. Mrs. Schnabel looked through the file on that house, and said it didn't tell them very -much. She said they would have to proceed without that visual image in mind. Mr. Barna stated that his major concern was that there were thousands of lots like this in Fridley where the front yard was the side yard, or vice versa, and although the swimming pool itself would be flush with the ground, it was still an accessory building. He said that if they granted a variance for an accessory building in this case, they might be opening it up for garages and other structures in front yards. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that it wasn't the Tomczak's fault that it was their front yard by a technicality, and Chairperson Schnabel said that it was an unfortun- ate thing the shape of the lot created the problem. Mrs. Gabel asked if it would be conceivable they could put up a 41 fence on the property line and put in an above -ground swimming pool. Chairperson Schnabel said that a six foot fence would be required. Mrs. Gabel asked if they would also need a variance for an above -ground pool, and Mr. Holden replied it wild be treated the same way. Mr. Barna said he objected to allowing a variance for an accessory structure in a front yard. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, denial of the request for variances to allow the construction of an inground swimming pool. Upon a voice vote, Barna, Kemper and Schnabel voting aye; Gabel voting nay, the motion carried 3-1. Chairperson Schnabel explained to Mrs. Tomczak that this would go before the City Council on the 18th of October, and she could present her plans again at that time. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRON THE CONSTRUCTION OF D HEATHER HILLS SECOND I FRIDLEY MINNESOTA. u Street N.E., Minnea olis The petitioner withdr6w his come within City Code. IECTION 205.053, 42 A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FEET, TO ALLOW ,LING AND GARAGE, LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, 'ION, THE SAME BEING 6180 KERRY LANE N.E., !st by Michael E. O'Bannon, 5298 Fillmore Minnesota 55421). st as he had designed a house that would �omm.�.ssion Meeting.. September 28, 1976 L' Page .6 3. REQUEST FOR 7 A VARIANCE OF , REDUCE THE REQUIRED SECTION 205,053, THE CONSTRUCTION ED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM' .2 FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO HEATHER A DT;IELLIAIG AND G 35 FEET TO 20 FEET, TO ALLOW FRIDLEY HILLS SECOND ADDITION, THE SA14E BEING 6170 KERRY LOT 10, BLACK 1, MINNESOTA. q Street N.E., Minneapolis, Minnesotachael E. O�Bannon, 5298 LANE llmor' MOTION b 55it21). e y Bea, seconded by Kemper voice vote, all voting aye., the motionocopen the enanblic He imously. meg. Upon a ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY setback of 35 feet. REQUIREMENT: Section 20 5.053, 4, A, front B. C. Public p Yard Purpose served is that the front keep structures back far enough yard setback restrictions tend to for aesthetic purposes, and also to attain adequate open space into oor long enough to allow par, make g f space in front oara Public right of way. the g vehicles age Without encroaching STATED HARDSHIP: The grade very deep footing of the lot makes furth and the cutting of two er setback re "A.rMINIS large oak trees. quire a Z'RATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This lot does f Therefore, moving the construction back on th all away lowering of the rear footin o from the street. that would fit on the lot that would not e e lot would result in the However, we feel a home can be designed and would not be any further back on this encroach into line of the house. any required setbacks with respect to the rear We feel that the Commission for the request will have to hear the receive a determination�oan he matter the comments of the neighborsand and reasons then make M'r• OrBannon was at the meeting to Cadwell, 1293 Brighton Square, New Brighton the request along with lir. Ron �'. O'Bannon , who would be the owner of the house. house would be presented the plans to the Board He showed where the from he to were situated and eteep xp hid that although the tee, there was a steep hill would face, and explained there was soa1 on the lot and It tras wooded. actually be 30► from the street, also a 101 and how the house boulevard so the house would variance because there was a He stated that he was asking the basement would be sittingsteep grade in the rear t for a �5� out of the ground. and as the house sat, Mr'• Barna noted that the would be no more lots behindpertythesin back of these lots was back from the garage side Chairperson Schnabel notedkit wash 20Par, so e s and actually 26� back from the living quarters. ' .. • ., !. � .�. ____ ____ _ _ _ _ �- - 167 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 PAGE 5 Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, then proceeded to reiterate for the purpose of clarification and to give some background and reasoning on the East River Road project. He further stated that East River Road has been a four lane road for over twenty years, thereby being a four lane road before a number of the houses were built in Fridley. Basically, the interest of the City has.been to try to control the traffic on East River Road and make it easier for local traffic to qet on and off the roadway safely. He further pointed out that presently, the plan has been approved to be funded by a federal grant and if the City is ever going to do any improvement on East River Road, this would be the right time as the City could use federal funds to do the project rather than the local taxpayers having to pay for the project. He further stated that the chance of losing the federal grant could happen if the project is delayed. Also, if there are any legal requirements to be met, such as environ- mental impact study, it should be done. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER -18, 1976: R. TOMCZAK, 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E.: Mr. Sobiech stated that'this was a request by the petitioner at 999 Overton Drive for a variance; first, to allow reducing the front yard, and second, to allow a variation from the 4' fence requirement in the front yard to a 6' fence as required by the Swimming Pool Ordinance. He also stated that the Appeals Commission did deny the request by a 3 to 1 vote. Mr. and Mrs. Tomczak were present and Mr. Sobiech asked -them if they had reached any agreement with the surrounding property owners. Mr. Tomczak replied that they had aqreed at the Appeals Commission meeting to go - along with their request for a swimming pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that. he spoke with several of Mr. Tomczak's neighbors and although they did not object per se, they were, however, concerned about the safety aspects of putting something that close to the boulevard. He further pointed out that the Appeals Commission did have a similar type request which they did pass without Council input, and there have been some problems with that; and the encroachment on the boulevard was not to the extent as that being discussed now. Councilman Hamernik further added that he talked to Mr. Ault and that Mr. Ault indicated to him that he did not want to be the one to block this request, however, he felt there was a concern which was the City's responsibility; that being the site situation of putting something which is essentially in a front yard along the street. Councilman Hamernik expressed his concern about allowing something like this because there is.a considerable deviation from the plan of the area since the requirement on something like this is 35. Mrs. Tomczak responded that she felt this was very unfair and that this was the only place they could put in a pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he would not be in favor of approving the request at this time, but he would be open to tabling the matter for further discussion. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she believed this is something that is going i to come up again and again and suggested that Council get together for discussion on November 22nd. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table the matter in order to formulate and discuss a policy with the Appeals Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PACO, INC., 7760 BEECH STREET: Mayor Nee stated that the Appeals Commission recommended granting one variance, but not the other variance. Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by Paco Masonry for a variance from building setback and property line setback in order to be allowed to construct a speculative warehouse. He further stated that the petitioner was notified but was not in attendance and he did not know why he was not present. There also appeared to be some confusion regarding which plan the Appeals Commission was to look at. The petitioner had brought in one plan for his application, and at Q 'I 168 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18,-1976 PAGE 6 anther time he'd brought in a revised one. Fortunately'the variance request was the same -- setback from a lot line and setback from a building line. The only problem is that at the meeting, the Appeals Commission did not know which plan they were really looking at, and so they approved one variance and passed on the other without recommendation. The Appeals Commission did recommend approval of a variance request to use the parking lot setback from 5' to 3' and they failed to make recommendation regarding the 5' setback from the property line. Mr. Sobiech,further commented that it was Staff's contention that the 5' setback requirement to the property lot line be maintained based on the concern they have for the future development of the block. He also believed that in order to continue' the development of an industrial nature, there will have to be side yard setbacks for this reason. Also, at this point in time, he would not want to get involved in the situation where there is a black top parking lot abutting proposed future buildings. In order to maintain this flexibility, it was requested that the 5' be maintained and that a reduction in the building actually take place. Mr. Sobiech also stated that the petitioner mentioned at the Appeals Commission meeting that it would be a hardship in that he would not maintain his 40% lot coverage. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the Appeals Commission to allow off-street parking within 3' of the main building and deny the request for reduction in setback for a parking lot from a property line.. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ! RESOLUTION NO. 110-1976 - RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING N THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPR VEMENTS: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1977-1AND ST. 1977- M AS : MOTION by Councilman Starwalt i,) adopt Resolution No. 110-1976. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i a? CLAIMS:` MOTION by Couhcilwoman Kukowski to pay the Claim No's. 17189 - 17407. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the j motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR STREET AND ALLEY VACATION, ASSURANCE N F' T 0., 7753 BE CHS R T: i MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the reading and adopt the first reading of an ordinance to grant the drainage and utility easement vacation request SAV #76-05 for Assurance Manufacturing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION ty Councilwoman Kukowski to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of October 18, 1976 adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy C. Green William J. Nee Secretary to the City Council Mayor I Approved: FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 282 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:15 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS Co,1M-IS�INUTES: SEPTEMBER 15, 1976 Mrs. Gabel referred to the second paragraph on page 11 and the statement she had made that it was encouraging. She explained she meant it was encouraging to see fees lowered where they were higher than the actual'costs. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the minutes of the September 15, 1976 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.053, 4, A, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 4.5 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF Ali INGROUND S:tiTI101ING POOL, AND SECTION 205.143, 31 TO INCREASE THE 4 FOOT MINII-MI HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO 6 F E T IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FENCE NCE REQUIRaIENT OF THE SWINRIING POOL ORDINANCE, ALL LOCATED ON LOT 12, BLOCK 4s BROOKVIE:•l TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak, 999 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55132). MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice ° vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, A, front yard setback of 35 feet; Section 205.143, 3 six foot fence requirement around swimming pools. Public purpose served is that the front yard fence and structure restrictions tend to keep front yards more open and aesthetically pleasing. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The front yard is the only place that the owner can construct a pool, and if he is allowed a pool he needs a six foot fence to meet the City Code pool specifications. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 2 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This front yard is not typical in that the house faces the side of the lot; therefore, the fence and pool will not be in the front yard now used as front yard. However, it would lie in front of the home just East of the applicants. Staff feels the variances should only be granted if the homeowner at 953 68th Avenue has no objection, since it would affect them the most. There is.no logical compromise available. Mrs. Robert Tomczak was at the meeting to present the request, along with Mr. and Mrs. Dan Ault, 953 68th Avenue N.E., the adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Tomczak showed the Board a plat with a rough drawing, and explained what she and her husband wanted tQ do. She said that if Mr. and Airs. Ault were not agreeable to the proposed plan, she and her husband agreed they would not build it. She asked Mr. Holden how far a pool had to be from t -:e existing property line. Mr. Holden explained it was considered an accessory building so it would have to be at least 3' from the property line with a verifying survey, or 11-j feet without. a survey. He said that since there was no verifying survey, it would have to be !iz feet from the property line. Mrs. Tomczak stated that their existing fence was 13i feet in from their property line, and would have to be extended. She explained they were proposing a 36' kidney -shaped pool, and showed how it would fit on their property and where the diving board would be. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a 3' deck requirement, and Mr. Holden replied there was. He said there was approximately 12' from the curb to the property, and another 1.111' to the pool edge, so there would be a total of about 164g' from the curb to the pool. ' Air. Ault stated that one of -bis concerns was that the fence would obstruct the view, and there would be a problem going in and out of his driveway. Chairperson Schnabel asked what type of fence the petitioner was planning on putting up, and :•irs. Tomczak replied a board -on -board, the sane type they had at the present time. Airs. Schnabel stated that chain-link fences were also legal at 61. Mr. Kemper said that this had been discussed several weeks ago, and it had been decided a chain-link fence was climbable. Mrs. Schnabel said it was the Building Inspector's feeling that a toddler would not climb a 6' fence. Mrs. Tomczak stated she didn't feel a chain-link fence was safe, and she didn't care for that idea. Air. Barna commented that vertical board -on- board fences that gave no toehold were preferable. Mr. Ault said that another concern of his was if he would be allowed to paint or stain his side of the fence. He said that they hadn't yet reached an agree- ment with the Tomczaks regarding the fence in the back yard, and there was some concern about the fence in front. He explained that he would like to stain the fence to match his house, but the Tomczaks preferred to leave it natural. Chairperson Schnabel stated it was the property owners responsibility- to maintain the fence, unless the fence was right on the property line. Mr. Holden said that if two neighbors put up a joint fence tggether, then they shared responsibility of the fence; in this case it would be the responsibility of the w Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 3 owners. Chairperson Schnabel asked if adjacent property owners had any protection against an unsightly fence, and Mr. holden replied that according to the complaint procedure the City Staff could discuss the matter with the adjacent property owners and try to settle any questions. Mrs. Gabel said that this seemed to be a matter of one person liking the fence stained and the other person liking the natural affect, and everyone was entitled to their preference. Mrs.Ault stated there would be a problem staining one side of the fence and not the other. Pars. Tomczak said they could discuss that, but if the pool didn't go in the fence would never be stained. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the existing shrubbery would have to be removed if the fence was extended, and Mrs. Tomczak said she thought it would. She added that the two large lilac bushes would have to be removed, but she hoped the smaller shrubs could be transplanted. Chairperson Schnabel said one concern she had from a safety standpoint was the encroachment into this area as far as driving down the street was concerned. Firs. Gabel asked 'now many feet were actually going to be added on to the fence going toward the street, and Pars. Tomczak replied about 332'. Mr. Kemper asked if there were any other variances granted on the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied there weren't any, and the houses were in a fairly straight line. Mr. Kemper commented this might be a rather severe visual encroachment for that street, and Pars. Tomczak pointed out that they could.put up a 41 fence if they wanted to. Mr. Kemper stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to maintain an aesthetic open area, and this request was violating that. Mrs. Tomczak commented they had not known until this came up that their side yard was actually their front yard. Pars. Schnabel asked hoar much traffic was generated on 68th•Avenue in terms of cars or children, and Mrs. Tomczak replied that a survey had been taken on Labor Day and in 96 hours there had been 300 cars. Mr. Kemper asked :r. and Mrs. Ault if they had reached any kind of conclusion regarding their objections to this. Mr. Ault stated that they had a natural concern, but they didn't want to limit something that somebody else wanted to do. He said they wanted to be good neighbors but they didn't want the pool to detract from their property. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they had any particular feelings on the board -on -board fence being extended down versus a chain-link fence. Mr. Ault replied that they would prefer a fence similar to the existing fence, but their concern was about staining it so it would blend in with their house. Mrs. Ault added that she was also concerned about children being able to look down the street for cars if there was•a lot of snow piled up there. Mr. Ault stated that he had been under the impression that if he signed the release for the Tomczaks to build the pool, then he could stain the fence to match his house. Mrs. Tomczak said that was fine, but her husband's concern was that if the Aults moved then they would have to keep maintaining the fence. Chairperson Schnabel also pointed out that if the Tomczaks should sell their house, then the new property owner would also have to maintain the fence. She suggested that if the Tomezaks would be agreeable to allowing the neighbors to stain the fence, and they in turn were agreeable to the construction of the pool, perhaps they could reach a happy medium. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 4 Mrs. Gabel asked the Aults if they could specify what their feelings were. Mr. Ault replied that they had no objections to a pool, but they were concerned with the location and the view and the fence. He stated they did not want to object to someone doing something like that if the City agreed it would be in the best interest of the City and the property owners on the street, and he would leave it up to the Board. Mr. Kemper asked if they had the decision to build that pool, would they or would they not build it. Mr. Ault again stated they didn't object to someone building a pool, per se, but they were concerned with the location. He said he didn't know what impact it would have on his property, but he thought it might make it more difficult to sell. He added that they didn't want to be the ones to say yes or no, and felt it was some- thing the Board had to decide. Chairperson Schnabel asked if it would be less objectionable to the Aults from an aesthetic standpoint if in addition to staining the fence there was some planting along -the side, and Mr. Ault replied that was what they would do anyway. Mrs. Schnabel asked if -in addition to the aesthetics, they were also concerned about the safety factor. r1rs. Ault replied that as a mother she was concerned about the view being obstructed in the winter and the children not being able to see cars coming. Pers. Schnabel commented that she felt 121g' would be ample room to plow the snow. Chairperson Schnabel stated that if the Board decided to approve the request and there was no dissention from the neighbors, Staff, or Board, the Tomczaks could proceed with construction. If there was some objection, she said, then 'the request would go to the City Council and it would be reviewed one more time, and their decision would become final. She explained that was why they wanted to know how the Aults felt about it before they took any action, and they wanted to make sure everybody had an ample opportunity to express their feelings. Airs. Gabel asked when construction on this would be started if a variance was granted, and Mrs. Tomczak replied they would start next week. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they had talked to any of the other neighbors, and Mrs. Tomczak answered that she had talked to every neighbor within 200' and no one else expressed concern. Mrs. Ault asked how the pool was going to be enclosed, and Mrs. Tomczak showed her where the fence and gate would be. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they . would have to enter the pool through the gate also, and Airs. Tomczak replied that was correct, there would be no direct access. Mr. Barna asked if the pool area could be seen from the kitchen windows and Airs. Tomczak said no, only from the bedrooms. Air. Barna asked how long they had been planning this, and Airs. Tomczak replied since July, but they had just found out that their side yard was their front yard when they talked to Darrel Clark. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper stated he had a very severe concern about the amount of visual encroachment there would be along 68th. .He said they would be moving a structure out to 12' from the curb, and it would be the only structure sticking out along the street for several blocks. Mr. Kemper said he had a strong concern that they would be seriously violating an ordinance that said that shouldn't be Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 5 done*in the City of Fridley. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the fence across the street was 12' back, because in her mind that didn't seem like it was terribly close to the street. Mr. Holden looked through the records and returned to say that there was no verifying survey for the house across the street from the Tomczaks. Mrs. Schnabel looked through the file on that house, and said it didn't tell them very -much. She said they would have to proceed without that visual image in mind. Mr. Barna stated that his major concern was that there were thousands of lots like this in Fridley where the front yard was the side yard, or vice versa, and although the swimming pool itself would be flush with the ground, it was still an accessory building. lie said that if they granted a variance for an accessory building in this case, they might be opening it up for garages and other structures in front yards. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that it wasn't the Tomczak's fault that it was their front yard by a technicality, and Chairperson Schnabel said that it was an unfortun- ate thing the shape of the lot created the problem. Mrs. Gabel asked if it would be conceivable they could put up a 41 fence on the property line and put in an above -ground swimming pool. Chairperson Schnabel said that a six foot fence would be required. Mrs. Gabel asked if they would also need a variance for an above -ground pool, and Mr. Holden replied it wo',ld be treated the same way. Air. Barna said he objected to allowing a variance for an accessory structure in a front yard. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, denial of the request for variances to allow the construction of an inground swimming pool. Upon a voice vote, Barna, Kemper and Schnabel voting aye; Gabel voting nay, the motion carried 3-1. Chairperson Schnabel explained to Mrs. Tomczak that this would go before the City Council on the 18th of October, and she could present her plans again at that time. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ECTION 205.053, 49 A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF D7,.ELLING AND GARAGE, LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HEATHER HILLS SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6180 KERRY LANE N.E., FRIDLEY MINNESOTA. (Request by Michael E. O'Bannon, 5298 Fillmore Street N.E., Minnea polis'- Minnesota 55121)• The petitioner withdrew his r q e est as he had designed a house that would come within City Code. • PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 167 PAGES Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, then proceeded to reiterate for the purpose of clarification and to give some background and reasoning on the East River Road project. He further stated that East Rfver Road has been a four lane road for over twenty years, thereby being a four lane road before a number of the houses were built in Fridley. Basically, the interest of the City has been to try to control the traffic on East River Road and make it easier for.local traffic to net on and off the roadway safely. He further pointed out that presently, the plan has been approved to be funded by a federal grant and if the City is ever going to do any improvement on East River Road, this would be the right time as the City could use federal funds to do the project rather than the local taxpayers having to pay for the project. He further stated that the chance of losing the federal grant could happen if the !project is delayed. Also, if there are any legal requirements to be met, such as environ- mental impact study, it should be done. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER -18, 1976: R. TOMCZAK, 999.OVERTON DRIVE N.E.: Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by the petitioner at 999 Overton Drive for a variance; first, to allow reducing the front yard, and second, to allow a variation from the 4' fence requirement in the front yard to a 6' fence as required by the Swimming Pool Ordinance. He also stated that the Appeals Commission did deny the request by a 3 to 1 vote. Mr. and Mrs. Tomczak were present and Mr. Sobiech asked -them if they had reached any agreement with the surrounding property owners. Mr. Tomczak replied that they had agreed at the Appeals Commission meeting to go along with their request for a swimming pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he spoke with several of Mr. Tomczak's neighbors and although they did not object per se, they were, however, concerned about the safety aspects of putting something that close to the boulevard. He further pointed out that the Appeals Commission did have a similar type request which they did pass without Council input, and there have been some problems with that; and the encroachment on the boulevard was not to the extent as that being discussed now. Councilman Hamernik further added that he talked to Mr. Ault and that Mr. Ault indicated to him that he did not want to be the one to block this request, however, he felt there was a concern which was the City's responsibility; that being the site situation of putting something which is essentially in a front yard along the street. Councilman Hamernik expressed his concern about allowing something like this because there is a considerable deviation from the plan of the area since the requirement on something like this is 35'. Mrs. Tomczak responded that she felt this was very unfair and that this was the only place they could put in a pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he would not be in favor of approving the request at this time, but he would be open to tabling the matter for further discussion. t Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she believed this is something that is going i to come up again and again and suggested that Council get together for discussion on November 22nd. ' MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table the matter in order to formulate and discuss i a policy with the Appeals Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PACO, INC._ 7760 BEECH STREET: 1 ! Mayor Nee stated that the Appeals Commission recommended granting one variance, 1 but not the other variance. t t Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by Paco Masonry for a variance from building setback and property line setback in order to be allowed to construct a speculative warehouse. He further stated that the petitioner was notified but was not in attendance and he did not know why he was not present. There also appeared to be some confusion regarding which plan the Appeals Commission was to look at. The petitioner had brought in one plan for his application, and at . 1 &I t7- - Nle 00 CA w z NO X W 01 ItCLI it m < c x Ir a�1 4 � .1 -; 4k 1 FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:45 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTE1IBER 152 1976 Mrs. Gabel referred to the second paragraph on page 11 and the statement she had made that it was encouraging.• She explained she' meant it was encouraging to see fees lowered where they were higher than the actual costs. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the minutes of the September 15, 1976 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried inanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.0533 41 A, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REWIRED 35 FEET TO 4.5 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTiUCTION OF All INGROUND SWIhMING POOL, AND SECTION 205.113, 31 TO INCREASE THE 4 FOOT MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO 6 FEET IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FENCE REQUIRaIENT OF THE S61I' LING POOL ORDINANCE, ALL LOCATED ON LOT 12, BLOCK 4, BROOKVIFil TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E., FRIDLEY., MINNESOTA. (Request by :..r. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak, 999 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55132). MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRE"•TNT: Section 205.053, !t, A, front yard setback of 35 feet; Section 205.1113, 3 six foot fence requirement around swimming pools. Public purpose served is that the front yard fence and structure restrictions tend to keep front yards more open and aesthetically pleasing. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The front yard is the only place that the owner can construct a pool, and if he is allowed a pool.he needs a six foot fence to meet the City Code pool specifications. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 2 `W." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This front yard is not typical in that the house faces the side of the lot; therefore, the fence and pool will not be in the front yard now used as front yard. However, it would lie in front of the home just East of the applicants. Staff feels the variances should only be granted if the homeowner at 953 68th Avenue has no objection, since it would affect them the most. There is no logical compromise available. Mrs. Robert Tomczak was at the meeting to present the request, along with Mr. and Mrs. Dan Ault, 953 68th Avenue N.E., the adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Tomczak showed the Board a plat with a rough drawing, and explained what she and her husband wanted to do. She said that if Mr. and Mrs. Ault were not agreeable to the proposed plan, she and her husband agreed they would not build it. She asked Mr. Holden how far a pool had to be from to existing property line. Mr. Holden explained it was considered an accessory building so it would have to be at least 31' from the property line with a verifying survey, or 42 feet without. a survey. He said that since there was no verifying survey, it would have to be 42 feet from the property line. Mrs. Tomczak stated that their existing fence was 11-2 feet in from their property line, and would have to be extended. She explained they were proposing a 36' kidney -shaped pool, and showed how it would fit on their property and where the diving board would be. V Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a 3' deck requirement, and Mr. Holden replied there was. He said there was approximately 12' from the curb to the property, and another Wgl to the pool edge, so there would be a total of about 162' from the curb to the pool. Mr. Ault stated that one of -his concerns was that the fence would obstruct the view, and there would be a problem going in and out of his driveway. Chairperson Schnabel asked what type of fence the petitioner was planning on putting up, and Mrs. Tomczak replied a board -on -board, the s&-ne type they had at the present time. Mrs. Schnabel stated that chain-link fences were also legal at 61. Mr. Kemper said that this had been discussed several weeks ago, and it had been decided a chain-link fence was climbable. Mrs. Schnabel said it was the Building Inspector's feeling that a toddler would not climb a 6' fence. Mrs. Tomczak stated she didn't feel a chain-link fence was safe, and she didn't care for that idea. Mr. Barna commented that vertical board -on- board fences that gave no toehold were preferable. Mr. Ault said that another concern of his was if he would be allowed to paint or stain his side of the fence. He said that they hadn't yet reached an agree- ment with the Tomczaks regarding the fence in the back yard, and there was some concern about the fence in front. He explained that he would like to stain the fence to match his house, but the Tomczaks preferred to leave it natural. Chairperson Schnabel stated it was the property owners responsibility to maintain the fence, unless the fence was right on the property line. Mr. Holden said that if two neighbors put up a joint fence together, then they shared responsibility of the fence; in this case it would be the responsibility of the Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 3 ' I B owners. Chairperson Schnabel asked if adjacent property owners had any protection against an unsightly fence, and Mr. holden replied that according to the complaint procedure the City Staff could discuss the matter with the adjacent property owners and try to settle any questions. Mrs. Gabel said that this seemed to be a matter of one person liking the fence stained and the other person liking the natural affect, and everyone was entitled to their preference. Mrs. Ault stated there would be a problem staining one side of the fence and not the other. Mrs. Tomczak said they could discuss that, but if the pool didn't go in the fence would never be stained. Mrs: Schnabel asked if the existing shrubbery would have to be removed if the fence was extended, and tars. Tomczak said she thought it would. She added that the two large lilac bushes would have to be removed, but she hoped the smaller shrubs could be transplanted. Chairperson Schnabel said one concern she had from a safety standpoint was the encroachment into this area as far as driving down the street was concerned. Mrs. Gabel asked 'now many feet were actually going to be added on to the fence going toward the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied about 3h'. Mr. Kemper asked if there were any other variances granted on the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied there weren't any, and the houses were in a fairly straight line. Mr. Kemper commented. this might be a rather severe visual encroachment for that street, and airs. Tomczak pointed out that they could .put up a 41 fence if they wanted to. Mr. Kemper stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to maintain an aesthetic open area, and this request was violating that. Mrs. Tomczak commented they had not known until this came up that their side yard was actually their front yard. Mrs. Schnabel asked how much traffic was generated on 68th•Avenue in terms of cars or children, and Mrs. Tomczak replied that a survey had been taken on Labor Day and in 96 hours there had been 300 cars. Mr. Kemper asked 11r. and Mrs. Ault if they had reached any kind of conclusion regarding their objections to this. Mr. Ault stated that they had a natural concern, but they didn't want to limit something that somebody else wanted to do. He said they wanted to be good neighbors but they didn't want the pool to detract from their property. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they had any particular feelings on the board -on -board fence being extended down versus a chain-link fence. Mr. Ault replied that they would prefer a fence similar to the existing fence, but their concern was about staining it so it would blend in with their house. Firs. Ault added that she was also concerned about children being able to look down the street for cars if there was -a lot of snow piled up there. Mr. Ault stated that he had been under the impression that if he signed the release for the Tomczaks to build the pool, then he could stain the fence to match his house. Mrs. Tomczak said that was fine, but her husband's concern was that if the Aults moved then they would have to keep maintaining the fence. Chairperson Schnabel also pointed out that if the Tomczaks should sell their house, then the new property owner would also have to maintain the fence. She suggested that if the Tomczaks would be agreeable to allowing the neighbors to stain the fence, and they in turn were agreeable to the construction of the pool, perhaps they could reach a happy medium. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 4 Mrs. Gabel asked the Aults if they could specify what their feelings were. Mr. Ault replied that they had no objections to a pool, but they were concerned with the location and the view and the fence. He stated they did not want to object to someone doing something like that if the City agreed it would be in the best interest of the City and the property owners on the street, and he would leave it up to the Board. Mr. Kemper asked if they had the decision to build that pool, would they or would they not build it. Mr. Ault again stated they didn't object to someone building a pool, per se, but they were concerned with the location. He said he didn't know what impact it would have on his property, but he thought it might make it more difficult to sell. fie added that they didn't want to be the ones to say yes or no, and felt it was some- thing the Board had to decide. Chairperson Schnabel asked if it would be less objectionable to the Aults from an aesthetic standpoint if in addition to staining the fence there was some planting along the side, and Air. Ault replied that was what they would do anyway. Mrs. Schnabel asked if.i.n addition to the aesthetics, they were also concerned about the safety factor. I•Irs. Ault replied that as a mother she was concerned about the vier being obstructed in the winter and the children not being able to see cars coming. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she felt 1212' would be ample room to plow the snow. Chairperson Schnabel stated that if the Board decided to approve the request and there was no dissention from the neighbors, Staff, or Board, the Tomczaks could proceed with construction. If there was some objection, she said, then the request would go to the City Council and it would be reviewed one more Time, and their decision would become final. She explained that was why they wanted to know how the Aults felt about it before they took any action, and they wanted to make sure everybody had an ample opportunity to express their feelings. Firs. Gabel asked when construction on this would be started if a variance was granted, and Mrs. Tomczak replied they would start next week. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they had talked to any of the other neighbors, and Airs. Tomczak answered that she had talked to every neighbor within 200' and no one else expressed concern. Mrs. Ault asked how the pool was going to be enclosed, and Airs. Tomczak showed her where the fence and gate would be. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they . would have to enter the pool through the gate also, and Airs. Tomczak replied that was correct, there would be no direct access. Mr. Barna asked if the pool area could be seen from the kitchen irindow, and Mrs. Tomczak said no, only from the bedrooms. Mr. Barna asked how long they had been planning this, and Mrs. Tomczak replied since July, but they had just found out that their side yard was their front yard when they talked to Darrel Clark. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote., all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper stated he had a very severe concern about the amount of visual encroachment there would be along 68th. He said they would be moving a structure out to 12' from the curb, and it would be the only structure sticking out along the street for several blocks. Mr. Kemper said he had a strong concern that they would be seriously violating an ordinance that said that shouldn't be Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 done'in the City of Fridley. Page 5 1 Mrs. Schnabel asked if the fence across the street was 12' back, because in her mind that didn't seem like it was terribly close to the street. Mr. Holden looked through the records and returned to say that there was no verifying survey for the house across the street from the Tomezaks. Mrs. Schnabel looked through the file on that house, and said it didn't tell them very -much. She said they would have to proceed without that visual image in mind. Mr. Barna stated that his major concern was that there were thousands of lots like this in Fridley where the front yard was the side yard, or vice versa, and although the swimming pool itself would be flush with the ground, it was still an accessory building. lie said that if they granted a variance for an accessory building in this case, they might be opening it up for garages and other structures in front yards. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that it wasn't the Tomczak's fault that it was their front yard by a technicality, and Chairperson Schnabel said that it -:as an unfortun- ate thing the shape of the lot created the problem. Mrs. Gabel asked if it would be conceivable they could put up a 41 fence on the property line and put in an above -ground swimming pool. Chairperson Schnabel said that a six foot fence would be required. Mrs. Gabel asked if they would also need a variance for an above -ground pool, and Mr. Holden replied F it wo•ild be treated the same way. Mr. Barna said he objected to allowing a 4ariance for an accessory structure in a front yard. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, denial of the request for variances to allow the construction of an inground swimming pool. Upon a voice vote, Barna, Kemper and Schnabel voting aye; Gabel voting nay, the motion carried 3-1. Chairperson Schnabel explained to Airs. Tomczak that this would go before the City Council on the 18th of October, and she could present her plans again at that time. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCEOF ECTION 205.053, 42 A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUI�REDQ,rRON YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FLET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTIOPI OFIYALLING AND GARAGE, LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HEATIM HILLS SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6180 KERRY LANE N.E., FRIDLEY MINNESOTA. (1,Rkuest by Michael E. O'Bannon, 5298 Fillmore Street N E Minnea olis Alinnesota 551121). . ., The petitioner withd w his req est as he had designed a house that would come within City Code. O PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 167 PAGE 5 Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, then proceeded to reiterate for the purpose of clarification and to give some background and reasoninq on the East River Road project. He further stated that East River Road has been a four lane road for over twenty years, thereby being a four lane road before a number of the houses were built in Fridley. Basically, the interest of the City has-been to try to control the traffic on East River Road and make it easier for.local traffic to get on and off the roadway safely. He further pointed out that presently, the plan has been approved to be funded by a federal grant and if the City is ever going to do any improvement on East River Road, this would be the right time as the City could use federal funds to do the project rather than the local taxpayers having to pay for the project. He further stated that the chance of losing the federal grant could happen if the project is delayed. Also, if there are any legal requirements to be met, such as environ- mental impact study, it should be done. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER -18, 1976: R. TOMCZAK, 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E.: Mr. Sobiech stated that•this was a request by the petitioner at 999 Overton Drive for a variance; first, to allow reducing the front yard, and second, to allow a variation from the 4' fence requirement in the front yard to a 6' fence as required by the Swimming Pool Ordinance. He also stated that the Appeals Commission did deny the request by a 3 to 1 vote. Mr. and Mrs. Tomczak were present and Mr. Sobiech asked -then if they had reached any agreement with the surrounding property owners. Mr. Tomczak replied that they had agreed at the Appeals Commission meeting to go along with their request for a swimming pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he spoke with several of Mr. Tomczak's neighbors and although they did not object per se, they were, however, concerned about the safety aspects of putting something that close to the boulevard. He further pointed out that the Appeals Commission did have a similar type request which they did pass without Council input, and there have been some problems with that; and the encroachment on the boulevard was not to the extent as that being discussed now. Councilman Hamernik further added that he taliced to Mr. Ault and that Mr. Ault indicated to him that he did not want to be the one to block this request, however, he felt there was a concern which was the City's responsibility; that being the site situation of putting something which is essentially in a front yard along the street. Councilman Hamernik expressed his concern about allowing Something like this because there is a considerable deviation from the plan of the area since the requirement on something like this is 35'. Mrs. Tomczak responded that she felt this was very unfair and that this was the only place they could put in a pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he would not be in favor of approving the request at this time, but he would be open to tabling the matter for further discussion. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she believed this is something that is going to come up again and again and suggested that Council get together for discussion on November 22nd. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table the matter in order to formulate and discuss a policy with the Appeals Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice -vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PACO, INC., 7760 BEECH STREET: Mayor Nee stated that the Appeals Commission recommended granting one variance, but not the other variance. Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by Paco Masonry for a variance from building setback and property line setback in order to be allowed to construct a speculative warehouse. He further stated that the petitioner was notified but was not in attendance and he did not know why he was not present. There also appeared to be some confusion regarding which plan the Appeals Commission was to look at. The petitioner had brought in one plan for his application. and at 1444 HARRY S. JOHNSON PORE!PT P4 MEREDITH Pott 2 gl4. 1 i 14 S 0 47 _10 d 24 _ { q'.+, kN% 24 LAND lir471-i-fS -101VISO& AS .1 Pg7,ij� t �P. \, .y t01121 rwAhcc AVE. SOUTH 041%?*E^P*L-#S 20- MINNESOTA TUXEDO� 5-2140 A th;4 a !evf cl t:,44 Al 9 0 A, rlu! 04' .-'iut rieut, 40 210 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL. OF DECEMBER 6, 1976 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of December 6, 1976 was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. j ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Starwalt, Councilman Hamernik, Councilwoman Kukowski, and Mayor Nee. MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1976: MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to approve the minutes of the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of November 8, 1976, as .submitted. Seconded by Council- man Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1976: 1 MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of November 15, 1976, as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried 1 unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: I^, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SWIMMING POOL BY ROBERT TOMCZAK, 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E. BLED 10/18/76): MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to deny the request for the variance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 626 - REZONING REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA #76-04, GORDON SPENSON, TO REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-3; 6500 2ND STREET N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 626 and adopt it on the second reading, and publish. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 627 - REZONING REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA#76-03 BY EVERT CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND EVERT SWANSON NdD CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION P.S. #76-08, CENTrAL. TOWNHOUSE AnnTTTnR RV GIIMT v.14 qhm CONSIDERATION OF TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, T #76-03, BY EVERT SWANSON AND 211 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING; OF DECEMBER 6, 1976 PAGE 2 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON 3 ACRES OF LAND INSTEAD OF 5 ACRES: Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, proceeded to go throuoh the items in the Agreement. Also, at the last meetinq wherein the first reading of the ordinance for rezoning was adopted, the Administration had prepared a rezoning developmental agree- ment outlining certain requirements of the developer. At that time, the developer ` had not received the agreement, however, in the past few weeks they have been able to get together and review the agreement. The items in the developmental agreement were put together from comments received at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Sobiech then began with Item #1 of the Agreement which item indicated that the developer feels that the townhouse development is feasible for a thirty-six (36) unit development. This is in regards to the variance request which was recommended for approval by the Appeals Commission. The variance recommended minimum area for tpwn- house development from five acres down to three acres. The main intent of that require- ment is the feasibility of a homeowners association in conjunction with the townhouse proposal. Item #2 of the Agreement is regarding the rezoning wherein there is concern from the abutting property owners in that once the property is rezoned to R-3, that perhaps an apartment buiding or other uses could be developed instead of the intended townhouse development. However, in the Agreement it is specified that the developer is restricted to developing a thirty-six unit townhouse development and that multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling complexes, hotels, apartment hotels, motels, lodging and boarding houses, will not be permitted on the property unless. the developer comes before the City Council and explains a change in his plans. Item #3 of the Agreement provides for the intention of the owner to develop the town- houses to be owner -occupied in conformance with the Homeowners Association by-laws. Item #4 of the Agreement is a requirement of the City Plating Ordinance. Initially the developer was requested to pay a certain amount of the land for park dedication and some recreational facilities that are normally associated with townhouse development. In lieu of this, the developer has proposed to construct some recreational facilities in the area of a swimming pool; and he has indicated that the swimming pool will be in lieu of the land dedication and will be to the value -of the land dedication and provide the recreational facilities as has been allowed other townhouse developments. Item #5 regarding the roadway easement remains the same. Item #6 remains the same and will be submitted for review. Item #7 --there was input from the people that they would like to see a fence constructed along the existing residential properties adjacent to the townhouse structure. The developer has agreed to install a wood screen fence along the properties, but it would be constructed upon completion of the townhouse structure and at the time the landscaping is being placed. Item #8 was amended to remove the sixth line as it was redundant in that he already signed an agreement. Mr. Sobiech further stated that the developer's attorney has been in contact with the City Attorney. iCouncilman Fitzpatrick commented in regard to the swimming pool in that it did not seem to him that it was going to provide for the recreational needs of the area. .It will provide only one need of the area and even though the value would be equal, it still does not serve the purpose intended. The swimming pool is not going to be available to the park area but only to the property owners directly. Councilman Starwalt stated that he agreed with Councilman Fitzpatrick and asked the architect to provide some information regarding• the pool. i i I • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, Robert Tomczak 999 Overton Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Tomzak CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE t 9 FRIDL.EY MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 December 13, 1976 On December 6. 1976 , the Fridley City Council officially 4PX)§XrX.�X XXX=W)Wk fX deniediyour request for a variance with the stipulations listed below. Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the CM4LIllity Development Office at 571-3450. Sincerely, ERROLD L. BOAR CITY PLANNER JLB/de Stipulations: Concur with action taken. Q�JpWTipN6 U 'CZ m »pe _7g76 0 OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, September 28, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider•the following matter: A request for variances of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205.053, 4, A, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 4.5 feet, to allow the construction of an inground swimming pool, and Section 205.154, 3, to increase the 4 foot minimum height of a fence in the front yard to 6 feet in order to comply with the fence requirement of the Swimming Pool Ordinance, All located on Lot 12, Block 4, Brookview Terrace Second Addition, the same being 999 Overton Drive N:E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak,.999 Overton Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL 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 Commi_ssion'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.