Loading...
VAR 04.796431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 April 13, 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, April 24, 1979, in regard to the following: A request for a variance of Chapter 205 of the.Fridley City Code, to allow the required 35 foot front yard setback to be reduced to 25 feet on four building sites. to allow construction of 'single family dwellings -at 5207,'5211, 5215 and 5241 Pierce Street 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 APPEALS CQMMI.,'.IQPi 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 A, April 24, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5207, 5211, 5215, 5241 Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 2.05.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment in to the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Bad lots need fill and each lot must be compacted. We are approximately 16 feet low that must be filled and compacted. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: These lots are located along the east side of the street. The existing grade falls off rather steep away from the street. If the homes were built at the normal 35 foot setback, the lots would require more fill. If variances are granted then the home on Lot 17, which has the normal 35' setback, should have some consideration by having the house on Lot 16 maintain a 30 foot set- back. This would result in a more gradual setback change and would lessen the encroachment into the "sight line" from Lot 17 or 5251 Pierce Street N.E. Lot 13 was granted a variance down to 25 feet last October, however, a reapproval would extend the time period to one year from new approval. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24,.]979 PAGE 8 Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Kok if he had talked to the people -who lived in the white stucco house to the north. Mr. Kok stated that he was going to do the construction. Ms. Schnabel asked for comments from the audience regarding this request. There were no comments. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Plemel stated that he felt this would be a nice addition to the residence and since it would be no closer to the other structures, he would have no problem.with it. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback from the minimum requirement of 10 feet to 5.9 feet to allow the construction of a 16 foot by 32 foot addition to the rear of a house at 6517 McKinley Street N.E. An additional variance is needed because at the time of the construction of the original house the front yard setback was reduced to 33 feet instead of the required 35 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED' UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. Kok that he was free to apply for a building permit. Mr. Kok thanked the Commissioners. 5. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO son, venue boutn, AnoKa, mn. 77juj1. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:27 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24,t 1979 PAGE 7 Ms. Schnabel stated that in terms of where the neighbor's house sits in relation- ship -to the.. survey, he sits a little bit forward of Mr. Kok's house. She asked if that was a 35 foot setback? Mr. Moravetz stated it was fairly close to a 35 foot setback. He stated that,the road curves substantially to the west. Ms. Gabel stated he was visually more forward because of the way the road curves. Ms. Schnabel stated that she didn't think the neighbor's house was 35 feet back. Mr. Moravetz stated that the files did not have a survey so he was not sure of the exact setback. He also stated that the middle of the neighbor's house would pro- bably line up with the front of Mr. Kok's house. He felt that was a pretty close approximation. He stated that the addition would not come any closer to the neighbor's house than the existing structure does. Mr. Barna stated that if you swung an are off the southeast corner of the house to the north you would probably find that their addition would go farther away from that are on that existing corner. Ms. Schnabel asked if the deck on the survey was currently existing. Mr. Kok stated it was. Mr. Plemel stated that the whole thing could be .shifted to the south but with the deck there it would be a problem. Mr. Kok stated that the deck would be coming off. Mr. Plemel asked if it wouldn't be possible then to shift the whole addition to the south. Mr. Kok stated that would put his kitchen window into his family room. He felt that appearance wise it wouldn't be too good. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Kok if he planned to do the work himself. Mr. Kok stated that all the rough work would be done by a professional.. Ms. Schnabel asked what he planned for the exterior. Mr. Kok stated it would be just like the existing exterior. Ms. Schnabel referred to the Administrative Staff Report and stated.that the front year setback was self-explanatory in terms of hardship and because the house was built the way it was. Ms. Gabel stated that the house looks nice the way it sits. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2I+, 1979 - PAGE 9 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 9 k..-........ 5207, 5211, 5215, 5241 -Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment in to the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Bad lots need fill and each lot must be compacted. We are approximately 16 feet low that must be filled and compacted. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: These lots are located along the east side of the street. The existing grade falls.off rather steep away from the.street. If the homes were built at the normal 35 foot setback, the lots would require more fill. If variances are granted then the home on Lot 17, which has the normal 35'. setback, should have some consideration by having the house'on Lot 16 maintain a 30 foot set- back. This would result in a more gradual setback change and would lessen the encroachment into the "sight line" from Lot 17 or 5251 Pierce Street N.E. Lot 13 was granted a variance down to 25.feet last October, however, a reapproval would extend the time period to one year from new approval. Mr. Mattson and his associate Mr. Hassler came forward and Mr. Mattson stated that his problem was that it would take approximately another 8000 yards of fill to fill because it has to be compacted. The fill that is there will have to be moved off because it is not buildable fill. He would like to level down the hill also. Ms. Schnabel asked if he was talking about filling up to the road level? Mr. Mattson stated it would be below grade and they would all be walkouts. If he got the variance it•would eliminate 10 feet of fill. Also, if they could move up 10 feet it would give him an extra 10 feet to slope the hill in the back so the people behind won't have water problems. Mr. Mattson stated that Mr. Hassler would be building his own house on the cul-de-sac: He noted that he had spent about $2+,000 on the retaining wall and they weren't done yet. They could be putting in another retaining wall. They thought they could bring the fill up from the lower land they had bought but it wasn't enough. They would still have to buy 8000 yards df fill. If they could have the 10 foot variance., they wou3d have a better back yard. APPEALS COMMISSION MEErING, APRIL 24, 1979 PAGE 10 . + t Ms. Gabel stated they would still have to buy a.lot of fill. Mr. Mattson stated that was correct and also stated that he would never have tackled this if he had realised all the problems there would be. Ms. Gabel asked what the road was that winded down behind it. Mr. Mattson stated that was a dirt road they used for hauling the fill and it wouldn't be there after they were done. He stated that the closer he could get to the street, the better he would be able to slope the back and he would put some ties in there so it would have some aesthetic value, not only for the neighbors sake but because Mr. Hassler would be living there and he wants it nice. Mr. Hassler stated they would bring in enough fill to have a nice driveway no matter what it costs. He stated that if they could bring it forward 10 feet there would be a little yard in back on the first three lots because it was not as steep as the other lot. It would also give it a nicer slope and help the runoff. Ms. Gabel asked about the drainage. Mr. Hassler stated they were setting aside 35 feet on another lot for a catch basin. Ms. Schnabel referred to the Administrative Staff Report and noted that Staff had recommended that the house on Lot 16 maintain a 30 foot.setback. Mr. Mattson agreed and stated that it would look better. Ms. Schnabel stated that the house next to the lot was setback at 35.4 feet from the street. If lot 16 was setback 30 feet it would give a more gradual setback change. Ms. Schnabel stated that on lot 13 they showed on the survey a setback of 13 feet on the south side. Mr. Plemel asked if they would need a variance for that. Ms. Schnabel stated that she was not sure. Ms. Gabel stated he already had it and asked if they were changing the variance. Mr. Hassler stated they were not changing it. Mir. Mattson stated they were not asking for side yard setbacks. Mr. Hassler stated he had made a mistake and they wouldn't need a side yard variance. Ms. Schnabel asked for comments from the audience and explained Mr. Mattson's request. Mr. Larry Case, 5251 Pierce St. N.E. came forward and stated that his house and the one next door to him is setback 35 feet. So even if the lot next to him was set- back 30 feet, it would still be a 5 foot difference. He understood the problem with filling in the back but still felt that the 5 feet was too great a distance. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24, 1979 .. PAGE 11 I% *felt that the lots up to the cul-de-sac should conform to the 35 foot setback -and thought the builder'should design the houses to accomodate the slope. He had no`prablem with the cul-de-sac, but felt the line of site should be maintained down the street. Mr. and Mrs. Brent Westeren, 5222 Pierce he agreed with Mr. Case. He also stated here also objected. Street N.E. came forward and stated that that another neighbor who couldn't be Mr. Hassler stated they would be willing to compromise. He suggested that lot 16 be setback 33 feet, lot 15 be setback 30 feet and lots 14 and 13 be setback 25 feet. This would make for a more gradual change. Mr. Case and Mr. Westeren agreed after some discussion and after looking at the topographical map. Mr. Plemel stated that it seemed like a reasonable compromise. Ms. Schnabel agreed and stated that they had a definite hardship. Mr. Case and Mr. Westeren agreed. MOTION by.Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M. Ms. Schnabel stated that the compromise that was worked out and agreed to by the petitioner and the neighbors was that Lot 13 and Lot 14 would have a setback of 25 feet, Lot 15 would have a setback of 30 feet and Lot 16 a setback of 33 feet. Ms. Gabel stated that it seemed like a resonable request and thanked the petitioners for being willing to compromise. Mr. Plemel stated that it seemed like a reasonable solution. INION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the required 35 foot front setback to be reduced to 25 feet on four building sites to allow construction of single family dwellings at 5207, 5211, 5215, and 52+1 Pierce Street N.E. with the stipulation that the setbacks be as follows: Lot 16 will have a 33 foot setback, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. Mattson that since an agreement had been reached, the variance request had been approved and he was free to proceed. Mr. Mattson thanked the Commissioners. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24, 1979 PAGE 12 6. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER AVENUE N:E•, FRIDLEY, MN. (Request Fridley, Mn. 55 32 ", t OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO 1 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. ."., UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Me. Schnabel asked Mr. Fehn to come forward and read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1601 Gardena Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 44, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None stated, however, the house already exists and the approval of the variance request would legalize the location of the.existing house. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This house is located on a lot large enough for two homes, however,.when the front lot is approved for a building site, it changes the front yard on the existing house from Gardena to Benjamin. Therefore, the required setback requirement from Benjamin changes from 17.5 feet to 35 feet. If the Commission approves this request, we would recommend two stipulations: 1. Change the address on the existing house from 1601 Gardena to 592.1 Benjamin Street N.E. 2. Change the existing sewor and water service to the existing house from Gardena to Benjamin.