Loading...
VAR 04.7711A9 - C) *V 7? P a s a"it ..0 I°Idl e. T sue�tcr ' AT1HE TOP.OF THE TWINS APPLICATION TO -BOARD OF APPEALS of .M 4 COMMUNITY DEVEL•OAMENt'DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPEOTIOWSEC. .CITY -HALE. IF RIDLEY'- • "55432 4 W)MBER 4 'REY. DME PAGF . OF g APPROVED RY 6fZ560-3450 "910,4231 3%21/75 1 2 too' Nam e ® 'Ad$res-s Phone Legal ' Wo.. ]Black No. 'fact or Ad2" �. Description `$ [ a_ Variance :Request (.$); including stated ', ar&-,h1ps (attach plat or survey of p,.rope'rty. showing building,, variances,. where e!pplicabZe) C i , ws d dIVO® Da e Meeting DateE'ee Receipt No: Bgnat>�re L6 �7 Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals s , City Council Action and Date 9 a 0 x a; .. . � k _ .. .,, r •0 � E _. 1 J t .. . ., a � i � . , a i j i r "^_ ' _. __. .. _ . _ .. .. ._. .. .. .. .. _. 't a ((( 1 r i ,y. :y... l' t � !. �� 'i ... .. ... ..-. _.. 1. .. .,. ..... � ...r.`i� � 'i ! . • _ _. _ _ .. ... .. _.... _ . _ .. .... _ 4 i t. t _._ .., ... � ..... I ... ....... �... _ _ ... ... ... ... FF i i i 1. .. .. , ! a i �.. ' � a t 0 .. _._ � 0 t....�... i . _w .. - ..... ., ..... _ _ ` ' � � 5 City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS SUSJhCT " APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS r' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. i � 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEv 55432 ,'j 612-560-3450 (Staff Report) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by j y 7 7 List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified Mr. & Mrs. Donald Philbrook 1220 Mississippi St. _ Mr. & Mrs. Allan Johnson 6448 Pierce St. Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Smith 6436 Pierce St. - Mr. & Mrs. Robert Zuehlke 1250 Missisiippi Mr. & Mrs. Joe Burmis 6459 Pierce St. N.E. - Helen Coffey 6449 Pierce St. N.E. c, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Bergman 6435 Pierce St. N.E. - Mr. & Mrs. George DeMarais 6411 Pierce St. N.E. �l, +1 '+s. �....+ti -..� '!.A �, 6 i �. rit � �� 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, April 26, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4.,, B'4, to reduce the required side yard from 5 feet to 2.3 feet to allow a garage addition of 14 feet to an existing garage located on Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, the same being 6459 Pierce Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Joe Burmis, 6459 Pierce Street 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 Commmission will have the final action on all residential variance requests unless there are objections from the 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 5, April 26, 1977 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6459 Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, B4, requiring a side yard setback of 5 feet from an attached garage. Public purpose served is to provide space between individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the to,the rear yard for emergencies and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: I want to store an additional car, snow blower, lawn mower, etc. in the garage. The present garage is not big enough as door is in the center. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: The survey shows that the proposed 14 foot addition would be 2.3 feet from the common property line to the South. The house doesn't lend itself to adding a garage on the North side. The existing garage does have living space above it. The existing South garage wall will remain intact except for a doorway opening. No additional living space would be added to the new garage site. The neighboring garage is 10.9 feet from the common lot line. If constructed, the distance between the garages would be 13.2 feet at the closest point. Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 Page 4 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission tables items 1 thru 4, until such time that the petitioner indicates another request. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. 5• REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.OF SECTION 205.0531 41 TB41. •3 FEET TO ALLOW A.GARAGE ADDITION OF 14 FEET TO AN EXISTING GARAGE, LOCATED ON LOT ' ao, STREET N•E•, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. {Request 64S9 Pierce Street N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 554321 MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was open. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A• PUBLIC'PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 41 B4, requiring a side yard setback of 5 feet from an attached garage. Public purpose served is to provide space between individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood— B- eighborhood— B• STATED HARDSHIP: I want to store an additional car, snow blower, lawn mower, etc• in the garage. The present garage is not big enough as the door is in the center. C• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: The survey shows that the proposed 14 foot addition would be 2;3 feet from the common property line to the south. The house doesn't lend itself to adding a garage on the North side. The existing garage does have living space above it. The existing South garage wall will remain intact except for a doorway opening. No additional living space would be added to the new garage site- The neighboring garage is 10.9 feet from the common lot line. If constructed, the distance between the garages would be 13.2 feet at the closest point. Appeals Commission Meeting = April 26, 1977 Page 3 B• STATED HARDSHIP: Lots, if rezoned to R-2, cannot be developed without requested variances• C• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The configuration of the lot is such that in order to maintain the existing front yard setback of 35 feet, the structure must be shifted to the rear• This shift reduces the rear yard to less than 25% of the lot depth required by the City Code• Approval of this request would be contingent upon rezoning of the property• Chairwoman Schnabel.gave some background on the items• She explained that at the Planning Commission meeting .of three weeks ago, the petition came through to rezone these properties from C-1 to R-2• She explained that of the lots in question, two lots are located on Osborne Road and two lots are located on Meadowmoor Drive• The petitioner had requested the zone change to R-2 because he wanted to build double bungalows or duplexes on each one of the four lots• Chairwoman Schnabel continued to explain that at the time this came before th Planning Commission, the petitioner did not show - However, she stated that a great number of the residents {primarily ones who lived on Meadowmoor} did show at the meeting• They presented a petition to the Planning Commission asking that instead of rezoning the lots to R-2, that they rezone them to R-1• Chairwoman Schnabel explained that they felt they were already overcrowded in the area in terms of the child population - Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that since the petitioner wasn't at the meeting and after much discussion, it had been decided that the item would be tabled until the petitioner could attend a meeting to explain his viewpoints• This was decided especially because of the great opposition from the residents• She said that the item was then tabled until May 4, 1977 - MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to set aside these items until later in the meeting, in the event that the petitioner or someone representing this request would show• Upon a voice vote, all voting�aye,:the motion carried unanimously• The petitioner never made an appear-ance at the Appeals Commission meeting of April 26, 1977- Mrs- 977 Mr.s• Gabel made the comment that since no one was in the audience for the first four.Items and the petitioner did not show up, and that it was obviously a situation that had many questions that needed to be answered, she felt the items should be tabled• Appeals Commission,Meeting- April 26, 1977 Page 5 " Mr. Burmis told the Appeals Commission why he wanted to add onto his garage. Basically he needed room to store a second car, snow blower, lawn mower,'etc• He indicated that the party next to him would have no objections. Mr. Holden had a survey that verified that the garage next door would be 10.9 feet from the property line. Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that, with Mr. Burmis' additional 14 feet would bring his garage to 2.3 feet from the property line. Chairwoman Schnabel asked Mr. Burmis if he intended to put living quarters over the new garage addition. Mr..Burmis indicated that he would -not be putting living quarters -over the new garage addition. Chairwoman Schnabel asked Mr- Burmis what type of roof line he would have. Mr. Burmi.s indicated that the new roof would be dropped down below the two windows on the south side of his present garage. Mr Kemper wanted to know what the living space above the garage was being used for. Mr• Burmis"indicated that it was an'ext'ra bedroom that they no longer use or'need• 'He also said that the existing wall of the garage would not. be taken=down because of this room. Mrs. Gabel asked for verification of.the:fact that he would be using the new garage addition for -an additional car and for storage? Mr- Burmis agreed. Mrs. Gabel wanted to know if there would be a door between the two garage sections or if the garages would be two separate buildings Mr Burmis responded that there would be.a.door in the existing wall. Mrs* Gabel asked if Mr- Burmis could pr..esently get into the garage from the house - Mr. Burmis said that yes he could Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 _Page 6 Mr- Kemper asked Mr- Holden if he had looked at the cur— rent elevation of the house as to how the garage addition would look. Mr. Holden indicated that it wouldn't look too bad. He said that there were broken roof lines all the way down the steet- Mr- Kemper asked Mr- Burmis if he was going to do the work himself. Mr. Burmis indicated that he was hiring someone to do the work. Mr. Plemel wanted to know what was the exterior of the home. Mr. Burmis indicated that it was stucco and that the new addition would also be stucco- Mrs- Burmis explained that the present garage door was fiberglass and that the new door would also be fiberglass. Chairwoman Schnabel asked if there was anyone in the audience regarding this request. There was no response. Chairwoman Schnabel arakdMr. theBurmis rear of hishapropertyconsidered building a separate garage to instead of adding onto the present garage. Mr. Burmis indicated that he had but didn't feel it would be feasible in his case- He felt this way mainly because he would have to havea driveway and he would prefer to have the garages attached. Mr- Kemper indicated that in looking at the Code, garages abutting each other could be as close as ten feet, and since this garage would be 13.2 feet, he did not feel it would be violating the intent of the public purpose. He also agreed with Mr- Burmis that it was difficult only having a single garage. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon.a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was cl-osed- Mrs- Gabel indicated that since the intent of the code is not being violated, and that the garage next door is big enough that, most likely, won't need an addition, she could see no reason why this request couldn't be granted. Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 Page 7 Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that on the north side of the property there is 20 feet, fairly unobstructed, that emergency vehicles could get through to the back property. Mr. Holden pointed out that since there was less than three feet from the lot line, there could be no openings on the south wall- The South wall would have to be a solid, fire wall - . MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission allow the variance to reduce the required side yard from five feet to 2.3 feet to allow a garage addition, with the stipulation that there would be no openings, at all, on the south.wall of the garage;_ and that the south wall be ..built as a fire wall. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. chairwoman Schnabel explained to Mr. Burmis that his request for a variance had been approved by the Appeals Commission and that he was now free to proceed with obtaining a building permit. She indicated that City Staff would want to review his plans. 6• REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OFT 'LLL 11VIV CUa • UJJ, 1iU11 1 V INLYU%.L. 1 n F. I i.L " _L I Lu ON A -LOT RECORDED BEFORE DECEMBER 29, 1955,__^ FROM ?50,0 SQUARE FEET TO 5220 SWUARE FEET, AND SECTION 205-0531 41 TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 33•?5 FEET TO 25 FEET {1/4 OF LOT DEPTH}, AND, SECTION _05.053, 2B, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM 50 FEET to 40 FEET*s Akin crrTTAN 2-5.{753, 4b, {5a} TO REDHCE THF STR T OF A DWELLING TO BE LOCATED ON LSAT 7 nBL©CK 2n.OAK GROVE ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK', THE S&ME BE NG 6694 FRTDI EY STREET N•E•, FRIDLEY, MT�NNESOTA. {Request by Craig Willey, 320 Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota 553031.' • MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to open the public. Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the public Hearing was opened. Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, ],977 Page 8 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: 1: Section 205.053, 1, B, requiring a minimum lot area on a lot recorded before December 29, 1955, of 7500 square feet. Public purpose served is to avoid overcrowding in the residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on existing water and sewer services. 2. Section 205.053, 4, C, requiring a rear yard setback equal to one fourth (1/4) of the lot depth With a 25 foot minimum. Public purpose served is to provide desired rear yard space to be used for green areas which add to the attractability of the neighborhood. 3. Section 205.053 2,B, requiring a minimum width of lot at the normal setback line of 50 feet. Public purpose served is to avoid overcrowding in the residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on existing water and sewer services. 4. Section 205.053, 4b, requiring the street side yard setback on corner lot of 17.5 feet. Public purpose served is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and reduce the line of site encroachment in the neighboring front yards. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Without stated variances, lot is unbuildable for a residential structure. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: In 1973, Mr. Willey was unsuccessful in his attempts to have the public right of way North of this lot vacated. He changed his house plan, and applied to the Board of Appeals to grant the necessary variances to build on the lot as a corner lot. This request was considered in the light of a petition by neighbors opposing the request, and much discussion at the Public Hearing. The variance request, similar to the one presented here, was denied at that April 23, 1974 meeting and sent on to the City Council, who upheld the Board's recommendation for denial, on May 6, 1974. Mr. Willey has submitted a new plan which eliminates the side yard variance on the South side of the lot. The total number of variances. requested has been reduced from 5 in 1974 to the present request for 4 variances. The house proposed is basically a 26' x 40' three bedroom, rambler which is 1/2 story shorter than the type of house proposed by the petitioner in 1974. The Anoka County Parks & RecrPation Department still is interested in negotiating a bikeway/walkway easement as well as an access easement for Park maintenance. Please refer to the letter and map included as well as a copy of the April, 1974 Appeals minutes and May, 1974 Council minutes for further information. i