Loading...
VAR 09.79IN VAR 01, 77 City of 1' ridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS 1 4 .. r ; L'�•�_ ` COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT DIV. I � PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 i , 1 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY • 55432 �• "•''� ,•� 612.560-3450 SUBJECT r APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS • NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF .1 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name B/� 0" ®C Address)®a �eA.;ORAMR )4,,Phoneo- 9617 Legal Description Lot No. Bloc No., Tr or Addn. Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat showing building,/ variances, etc., where applicable) Al •l �rX-� ��c�vc� � rc, , I or survey of property VAS cL e A e, f® C, e Date -so-2� Me.eting Date Fee Receipt No. signature Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals OF 4V IF ' r City Council Action and Date City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. t PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. t � � tI CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612.560-3450 SUBJtcr APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS (Staff Report) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 WE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BV 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Name List members, Plan Date To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 f et not' ied: By Whom Date Phone or Mail Notified IWA 6n AVA7 cja,611 /yy "ems V54-24 , 5-;O& -f A4 CITY OF FRIOLUY, MINNESOTA SUBJECT COMMISSION APPLICATION RE= -VIEW t•Jum�e; t Approved by I Date CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 September 7, 1979 Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 18'.6 1979,, in regard to the following: Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 32 feet, to allow a 6 foot addition to an existing house, located on Lot 1, Block 2, Carlson's Summit Manor South, the same being 100 Panorama Avenue N.E. Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEAL$ CQMMI$$IQN 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 #3 September 18, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 100 Panorama Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Would like to reduce the front yard setback by 6 feet to add an addition." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This property is on the corner of Panorama Avenue and Main Street N.E. and the house and detached garage face Panorama Avenue. The existing house is approximately 37.4 feet from the front property line and the houses to the east of this property are approximately 31.4 feet and 26.4 feet from the front property line. The 6 foot proposed addition would make this house line up with the house directly to .the east of it. There -is a 7.6 foot boulevard on this street. Item #3 September 18, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 100 Panorama Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Would like to reduce the front yard setback by 6 feet to add an addition." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This property is on the corner of Panorama Avenue and Main Street N.E. and the house and detached garage face Panorama Avenue. The existing house is approximately 37.4 feet from the front property line and the houses to the east of this property are approximately 31.4 feet and 26.4 feet from the front property line. The 6 foot proposed addition would make this house line up with the house directly to the east of it. There is a 7.6 foot boulevard on this street. 4 *, Ga APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Moravetz to clarify the footage, 14.4 feet or 18 feet, before it goes to these meetings. 3. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO -CHAPTER 205.OF_THE FRIDLEY_CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 32 FEET, TO ALLOW A 6 FOOT ADDI- TION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE, LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2. CARLSON'S SUMMIT MANOR SOUTH, THE SAME BEING 100 PANORAMA AVENUE N.E. '(Request by John A. Montour, 100 Panorama Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: -- ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 100 Panorama Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Would like to reduce the front yard setback by 6 feet to add an addition." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This property is on the corner of Panorama Avenue •and Main Street N.E. and the house and detached garage face Panorama Avenue; The existing house is approximately 37.4 feet from the front property line and the houses to the east of this property are approximately 31.4 feet and 26.4 feet from the front property line. The 6 foot proposed addition would make this house line up with the house directly to .the east of it. There is a 7.6 foot boulevard on this street. • c Mr. Moravetz said his only comment was that the staff would like'the visual safety control zone be a stipulation. Mr. and Mrs. John Montor, 100 Panarama Ave., said they propose a 6 foot by 12 foot addition on the front of their home. The windows and casings in this wall area are in bad need of repair and they felt since they were going to do that much work and spend that much money they might as well put an addition on the house. This would also give them much needed living room space. Ms. Schnabel asked if this addition would go.in front of the present front door, APPEALSCOMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE`5 but Mr. Korzenowski said it would be.22 feet. Mr. Moravetz measured the aerial view and the footage looked to be closer to 14f feet plus the addition of the 7.6 foot boulevard, bringing it to 21.6± feet. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner if she had a certified survey. Ms. Landis said no, she was told she would not need one. She pointed out there is a large tree in her front yard which should block some of the view -for the Korzenowskis. Mr. Korzenowski said he looked today and it will not block the view. He said he felt this porch would offset the entire look of the neighborhood. You give a variance for something like this now, what will you give a week from now. He thought it would be detrimental to the area. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:06 P.M. Mr. Barna noted this house was built in the late 40's. He said there have been many homes in this neighborhood of the same type that have been granted variances, so this one will not be setting a precedent. . He said the property is not your ideal home; it sticks out, has old stucco on it and he felt some of the neighbor's ojections were .it strong. Ms. Gabel said she agreed.and pointed out if the run-down condition was detrimental to anyone's health, safety or welfare, the city would automatically step in. She also felt the placement of a porch is a personal choice. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel to recommend to Council approval for the variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback -from the required 35 feet to.approximately 18± feet, to allow the enclosure of two sides of an existing structure for a 10 foot by 16 foot screen porch, located on,Lots 52 and 54, Block F, Riverview Heights, the same being 530 Janesville Street N.E. Ms. Schnabel said she would vote against the approval. She said there was an objec- tion by a neighbor so this item has to go to Council. S he said she had driven by the home and felt it was incompatible visually with the neighborhood because it sits so close to the street. She thought the enclosed porch would draw it out even more and so therefore not be in the best interest of the area. Ms. Schnabel also felt perhaps the money should be spent better on repairs then the addition. She voiced concern that the setback would be only 14.4 feet, which is more than half allowed by code. Mr. Kemper said he agrees with Ms. Schnabel, plus there was no real hardship shown. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MS; GABEL AND MR. BARNA VOTING AYE, MS. SCHNABEL AND MR. KEMPER VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION A TIE. Ms. Schnabel said since this was a tie vote and there had been an objection, the item would go to the Planning Commission on September 26, 1979 and to Council on October 22, 1979. i APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 7 creating a new entry way to help against heat loss in the winter. Mr. Montour said no, that would creat a snowbound area on his roof because of the gable already there. He said the roofs will be matched by using a shed style roof. Mr. Kemper said the.gable. could'be removed since it was not functional. This would help in conserving heat loss by the door and is another alternative. Ms. Schnabel.said their driveway does not enter off Main Street and would not be - hampered by this addition for vision safety. The petitioner said there is a telephone pole on the corner (visual safety control zone) and they have discussed with the city about their hedges located there. He said the outside of the addition will be contracted out and he will finish the in- side. They have received no negative comments from the neighbors contacted. Ms. Schnabel stated the hardships -were; 1. the window casings were rotten and needed to be replaced, and 2. they needed the additional living space. The home's dimensions are about 24 feet by 28 feet. Mr. Kemper said he was concerned about the tie-in of the roof lines and wanted staff to make special note of this. r Mr. Moravetz said before the building permit is issued, typical sections of the roof, living space and basement would be required. The building inspector will make all notes and requirements right on the blueprints. Ms. Schnabel asked if anyone from the audience had any comments. There were none. Mr. Moravetz'a last comment was that the hedges on the corner would have to be worked on. You can see around a telephone pole, but not through hedges. Mr. Kemper asked if this was a new policy with the visual safety control zone and how homeowners are notified. 3 Mr. Moravetz said it was a new policy and with limited staff, they try to inform the public through the newsletter or letters to a homeowner when a corner is noted. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOULSY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Ms. Gable felt the addition would be beneficial to the home and neighborhood.' MOTION by Ms. Gable, seomnded by Mr. Barna, to recommend ; approval of the variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 32 feet, to allow a 6 foot addition to an existing house, located on Lot 1, Block 2, Carlson's Summit Manor South, the same being 100 Panorama Ave,, with the stipulation that the area involving the visual safety control.zone be worked out between the homeowner and the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 PAGE 8 4. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 25 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC-• TION OF A 10 FOOT BY 20 FOOT ADDITION, WITH A FIREPLACE, ON LOT 1, BLOCK 3, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCKS 13, 14 AND 15, PLYMOUTH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 4512 2ND STREET N.E. (Request by Frank Kozlak, 4512 2nd Street NE=_ Fridlev,_ Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gable, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:30 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 4512 2nd Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less than 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: They need additional living area and they want to add a fireplace in this addition for energy conservation purposes. A C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The present house is setback 35 feet from the front property line along with the house to the north of it. The property to the south has an private home on it and it faces 45th Avenue with the side yard facing 2nd Street. The other houses along this block and north of this property are set closer to the street than the'35 foot requirement. The addition would not be setting a precedent in this.area for front yard setbacks. Ms'. Schnabel said there have been several homes in the area that had been granted the same type of variance requests. The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Kozlak, 4512 2nd Street, came forward. Mrs. Kozlak said their neighbor, Mr. Nedegaard had just put a large addition on his home and their addition would be lined up with his. The addition, 10 feet by 20 feet, would be used to enlarge the living room area. The fireplace will be useful in try- ing to conserve on energy during the winter months. Ms. Schnabel said there are shrubs on the south side of the property which will seclude this addition. She noted the neighbor's addition was quite large and close to the property line. .Mr. Kozlack said 2 trees will have to come out and new front steps poured. 4 July 7, 1981 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 B. J. Montour Panorama Avenue N.E. ley, MN 55421 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Re: Intersection Vision Safety Zone Obstruction at 100..Panorama Avenue N.E. Dear Mr. Montour: In order to provide safe passage for vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the City of Fridley, periodic inspections of street intersections are conducted. An inspection on June 30, 1981 has deter -mined that the sight line for the intersection on your property is obstructed and could present a hazard to traffic. Section 205.154 of the City Code requires that, "On a corner lot in a vision safety control zone, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner as to impede vision..., the vision safety control zone is described as follows: That area bounded by the street right of way lines of a corner lot and a straight line joining points on said right of way lines twenty five (25) feet from the inter- section of said right of way lines." Therefore, the City is requesting you, the property owner, to correct the following problem and make the City's streets safer for travel. A reinspection will be conducted on or about July 20, 1981 to determine compliance. We are confident in your cooperation to correct this matter and if any questions or problems result from this letter, please contact me at 571-3450. The inspection of your lot indicated that the following obstruction is existing and should be corrected: Bushes or shrubs growing into sight line - trim down or back to be less than A feet high Hedge growing into sight line - trim down or back to be less than 2;j feet high Tree branches growing into sight line - trim up Fence extending into sight line - lower or remove Sincerely, STEVEN J. OLSON, R.S. Environmental Officer