Loading...
VAR 06.79^ D ' v City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS Ir i, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. 1 i PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 =� /'---i CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 11 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name Alf Address Phones Legal Description Lot Y� / Block No. jTract�-Wr Ad Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) "VA7 - 7� -11210 , or survey of property ra 6 /70 3 ©CIR ' 7' GI �J 13 AiQdV Date Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. ign ure Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals sy ,Af City Council Action and Date City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS r" 1 ' ti • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 (Staff Repprt) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 GATE 3/21/,'5 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED by 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by 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 M/M M/M Name Loren Palmer, 6596 Channel Road N.E. Charles Johnson, 6580 Channel Road N.E. Date Phone or Mail Notified M/M Roy Boone, 6564 Channel Road N.E. M/M David Bona, 6548 Channel Road N.E. M/M Charles Peterson, 6532 Channel Road N.E. M/M Warren Spaeth, 6516 Channel Road N.E. M/M Richard Lekang, 6517 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Alvin Berg, 6533 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Richard Talbot, 6549 Pierce St. N.E. M/M David Phillips, 6565 Pierce St. N.E. M/M James Wedan, 6581 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Donald Landry, 6597 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Richard Berganini, 6596 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Robert Skyhawk, 6580 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Martin Imbertson, 6564 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Vernon Brewers, 6548 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Wayne Hitchcock, 6532 Pierce St. N.E. James Lupient, 6516 Pierce St. N.E. M/M Jackie Young, 6549 Lucia Lane N.E. M/M Mearl Crosser, 6565 Lucia Lane N.E. M/M Richard Erickson, 6581 Lucia Lane N.E. Edward Lancello, 6596 Lucia Lane N.E. SPGA Fridley Associates, 6551-6571 Channel Rd. N.E. r` CITY OF FRIDLUY, SU8JE:CT MINNESOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW ve ont Umsion, Number t zz tie- ruga Approved by Dole ,. .•- _ COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST RETURN TO PLANNING �indOR rra, IS 71Y£ f L' CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 June 1, 1979 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, June 12, 1979, following: City of Fridley at 6431 University in regard to the Request for a variance to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback for a detached garage from,the required 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of an addition to an existing gargeI-:at 6565 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 SCHNA3EL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS CQMM!I ,5-TQN 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. Land Planning Land Swwyir>Iy Soils Testing Civil fr,NunnripaJ En9iaeeriny : Mortgage 6875_,g0mj V N.E Mirhae pfi 2/ ENGINEERING, INC. A�Jirmleso/a `- - • SUnt�i4-GQ66 — Enyneers Surve�ors Loan Survey -for D.L. ANDER_.1 BU.LDFR This is a survey to the house to the North of 6565 Pierce Street N.E. They used this verification survey to find their. own property line. The fence for this property is.l foot into I`= .the property at 6565 Pierce Street. } 13 j. 1 O I T ! l /3- A 3 A 6581 Pierce Stree� t 15/:, rs o hwe a -,d carrecf represenfaba? qra surveey ji-!he boundaries erthe lendobnre drsrrihedvrdo, h5e Jocohir ofa#LU1W7g5,, it ai y, 'h rer , a td o/J risible entrW04rWs . i�'any, Prem a on said /and. Thn st ry n made MAY or 4YMA'Chon 04 it merI /� �,. ��,r' n w,rn fist pmprrly Old no /�abiJi y n alsamed e epf /v ifte fioJdPr' "f su h mo, yaye or anu Aer /.7,1"/xred Ey�rensm e ' /i mei yaye, # wderstmd and oyreed m ffow�neofs bre icn dowd fir- Ae Purpose �'es oblsh/9 /, f /rr/ts or fxlvndary corners. SUBURBAN Elllfi,'NEf_RING, /NC. Poled tins day __...r �..�:.: AD. /9_,.;., i r FffflC rs and Sarre orS by ✓! -{.;_, Item #4, June 12, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6565 Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, #4 , requires a side yard setback of 5 feet on an attached garage Public purpose served by this requirement 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 a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We wish to change a one stall garage to a two stall garage as one car has to sit out and is aged much faster than normal." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing attached single car garage is 10 feet from north.property line.and they wish to add on a 7 foot garage addition that would be only 3 feet from the line. The neighbor's house to the north is 29 feet from the common lot line, which would leave more than the -3 -5 ---foot minimum requirement between adjoining garage and living areas. Item #4, June 12, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6565 Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, #4 , requires a side yard setback of 5 feet on an attached garage Public purpose served by this requirement 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 a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We wish to change a one stall garage to a two stall garage as one car has to sit out and is aged much faster than normal." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing attached single car garage is 10 feet from north property line,and they wish to add on a 7 foot garage addition that would be only 3 feet from the line. The neighbor's house to the north is 29 feet from the common lot linep which would leave more than the 11_foot minimum requirement between adjoining garage .and living areas. l CITY OF FRIDLEY • APPEALS COMMSSION MG'ETING - JUNE 12, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairwoman Gabel called the June 12, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7:hO P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Plemel, Mr. Kemper, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel Others Present: Mr. Clark, Community Development Administrator 1. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 151 1979: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. P1emel, to approve the May 15, 1979, minutes of the Appeals Commission. Mr. Barna stated that on page 8, the first large paragraph, the second sentence from the end, the word "missing" should be changed to "not seeing". Ms. Gabel stated that on page 20, the sixth paragraph, the words "in that area" should be added to the last sentence in that paragraph. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO TY A,.U'&� : 20 FEET TO M:i��]iril��i�• ::iiii�ft� BUILDING AT 5701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NORTHEAST. (Request by The Graves , 5251 Central Avenue NE, Fridley, Mn. 55721.) MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Thomas Langseth came forward and stated he was representing the Graves Company. Ms. Gabel read the Administrative Staff.Report as follows: APPEALS C0149ISUON INET 12 1979 - PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5701 University Avenue N.E. I A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENTS: 205.103, 4A, #1, requires that permitted buildings and uses except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential service, walks, and planting spaces shall ndt be closer to any public right of way than 35 feet. A setback of 20 feet is required for off street parking. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain adequate setbacks for aesthetic open areas around commercial structures. 205.104,-1E, #1, prohibits off-street parking in any portion of the required 20 foot front yard. Public purpose served by this requirement is to limit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right of ways. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Building site is bordered on -three sides by streets. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIMI: The site is bounded on three sides by public right of ways which does render the site very difficult to build on with a commercial building and still provide sufficient parking without some Code variances. The staff has no stipulations it would recommend if the Board recommended the approval of the variances requested. Mr. Langseth gave the Commissioners a copy of the plans. Ms. Gabel asked W. Clark why there were two different.drawings? Mr. Clark stated that -the petitioner., Mr. Langseth., had talked to the Planning Department that morning. A change was made in.the size of the building. The drawing in the -agenda indicated a building size of 90 x 40. The drawing they brought in this morning showed a size of 110 x 45 and was later reduced to 108 x 43. They building they should consider here would be 108 x 43. The only variance _affected would be the one on the south and it would reduce that one from 17 to 15. So, instead of reducing the parking setback from 20 to 17 feet as stated .in the notice., it would reduce it from 20 to 15 feet. Ms. Gabel stated that she thought that would require another notice. +, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1979 _ PAGE 3 Mr. Clark stated that he understood that Mr. Boardman had talked to the City Attorney about this. If they have an existing condition., and, right now the existing condition is zero., and as long as the new condition is more than what is presently there, they would not need a variance., Ms. Gabel stated that she would still question this because they had never done this before. She noted that this would be going to Council and suggested they ask Mr. Herrickfor a legal opinion on this before it goes to.Council. Mr. Langseth stated that the plans were close to,what was proposed and also stated that they do meet the code requirements for the parking and for the drive-throughs. They increased the size of the building strictly from an economic stand point. He stated that as far as the variances go., the only one affected was the one Mr. Clark had referred to. He also stated that they don't have bumper to bumper$ in other words? the two rows of parking would go to. the berm. Right now, the asphalt does go to .the property line and they would create a berm that would be landscaped- and andscapedand would.be in line with what's on the other side of the property. Mr. Boardman mentioned today that at the existing opening there is presently a median and he suggested that when the new service road comes in around the future Super America Gas Station., they move their ingress and egress to that point also. This would avoid traffic problems. Ms. Gabel asked if the new size of the building would stay under the 40% lot coverage requirement? W. Langseth stated it would. The lot is 19.,000 square feet and the building would be 4.,644 square feet. The lot is 175 x 120 square feet. Mr. Plemel asked if they were going to tear down the existing building? Mr. Langseth stated they would tear it down. He stated that everything would come down and it would be a decorative lot. It presently is designated as office -retail., but they do not have a definite tenant at this time. Ms. Gabel asked why 57th Place was the front yard when.the narrow side of the lot is supposed to be the front? Mr. Clark stated that they couldn't get access off Highway 47. He also stated that on double frontage lots it states they must have 35 feet off both streets. Mr. Langseth stated that in this case., they were bounded on three sides by streets and if they had to go 35 feet on all three sides., they would not be able to put a building there. He stated that what they tried to do off the service road is create the best possible image. Mr. Clark stated that it wouldn't make any difference because they still have to be 35 feet to the building and 20 feet to the parking. Ms. Gabel asked if they had any tenants? APPEALS MMISSION MEETINGj_ JUNE 12.9 1912 - PAGE 4 . Mx. Langseth stated they did not have any definite tenants, but were talking to people. The Wenchell Donut proposal fell through. They were looking at office -retail and would meet the parking requirements. In other words, they couldn't have a 140 seat restaurant. They would have more than enough parking for a 36 seat Mr. Donut and the rest offices. That is their intent at this time. If they used all the space for office, they would definitely have enough parking. Ms. Gabel asked if the rezoning would be C -2S? Mx. Clark stated it would be C-2. Mr. Langseth pointed out that only one lot was involved in the rezoning. The other three lots were already C-2. Ms. Gabel asked if the pink house would be part of this? W. Langseth stated it would not and that the pink house had 32 lots. He stated their idea, was not to put something there that would be abrasive, but, considering the lot, they would put something that would be economically feasible. Mr. Clark asked if they could function without the egress onto 57th Place. He stated there was a problem with people driving through the existing station even though it is posted that they shouldn't. Mx. Langseth stated that they way it would be designed with the berm and the side- walk, they would not -be able to drive straight through, they would have to.make a jog of about 60 feet to get back out onto 57th Avenue. The one problem they would have is with a tenant on the end, that tenant would prefer facing University Avenue and would like their door on the west side. It would be an asset to have an in and out there so there would not be congestion for the parkers. What might happen is that the west side parking would become congested as far as in and out goes. They would have to take what is possible and the best thing for the building would be to leave that open and deal with the traffic problem by moving, as Mr. Boardman suggested, the opening to direct line it. There is almost 175 feet on the east line of the property. He noted there was a curb on the -west end of the south parking that is the length of a vehicle. If they went around there, it wouldn't be like it is"now. From their standpoint, it would be better to leave it open, but if it becomes a problem, that would be different. If it were all office space, there probably wouldn't be any reason to leave it open, but if they have a tenant like Mr. Donut, they would want it open. Ms. Gabel noted there were only 21 parking spaces and asked how the ratio was figured? Mr. Clark stated that the ratio for a restaurant they required 1 stall for every 4 seats and for an office they required 1 stall for each 250 feet of office space.. So, for a 36 seat restaurant, they would need 9 stalls, and for a building of this size for office, they would need 12 stalls. Mr. Langseth noted that 20% to 25% of the office space would be used for storage, etc. APPEALS COMISSI0P1 MEETING, JUNE 6�1979 ___� PAGE 5 Mr. Clark reminded Mr. Langseth about the restroom requirements. W. Barna asked Y✓x. langseth if they would try to have leases signed on all three sections before they begin construction? Mr. Langseth stated he was not sure, but no matter what, they were proceeding. He noted they had put about 100 hours work so far into this. Ms. Gabel noted that they would have to•keep.in mind that they only had 21 parking stalls and there was no more room available to expand the parking. So they would have to find tenants that would be compatible with the available parking. She also stated that she was concerned about the opening, and asked.,. if they could label one of the openings as an exit only? Mr. Barna stated that most people would not try to exit on 57th because of the traffic. Ms. Gabel asked if the Engineering Department had looked at this? Mr. Clark stated that it went through their offices and their comment was that when the service drive is located going south, the driveway off 57th would line UP• Mr. Langseth stated that in regards to backing up and getting in and out, there is more than adequate space available for mobility in the parking lot. They met the code and were looked at by Mr. Boardman. He also stated that if they changed the access off 57th Avenue, it would kill. the deal. They must have the opportunity to get in and out on 57th Avenue. Mr. Barna asked if Mr. Donut would have a service window on the west side? Mr. Langseth stated they would not have a service window. Ms. Gabel asked if they would have a free standing sign or if.the,building would be signed? Mr. Langseth stated that he understood they could have a ,pylon sign which would handle all three tenants and also the buildings would be signed. Mr. Plemel asked if they would use the existing sign? Mr. Langseth stated they would take that one down and the new one would be in the green area. He stated they would have to follow the guidelines of the City. Ms. Gabel asked about the existing lights? Mr. Langseth stated they would come down also. Mr. Barna asked about the underground tanks? Mr. Clark stated they would have to be either removed or filled with sand. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 12 1979 - PAGE 6 Ms. Grace Mathisen' 348 - 57th Place NEy came•forward and stated she was concerned about the traffic. Ms. Gabel explained the plan to Ms. Mathisen. Ms. Mathisen asked how much distance there would be between her property and the building? Mr. Clark stated there would be 15 feet from the building to her property line and 5 feet from the parking to her property line, M%.•Mathisen asked if a road would boarder her property? W. Langseth stated that no road would boarder her•property, Ms. Mathisen asked if the fence would be on their property line? Mr. Clark stated it could be within 6 inches of their property line. Ms. Mathisen noted there was a'slope there and asked if a retaining wall would be.there. Mr. Langseth stated it would be properly landscaped and if a retaining wall were necessary they would do that. He stated that the building would be appealing and so would the landscaping. They would meet the standards. Ms. Gabel stated that the grading and landscaping would be inspected by the City. Ms. Mathisen asked where the restaurant would be? Ms. Gabel stated the restaurant would be the tenant farthest from her house. Ms. Gabel asked W. Mathisen if she had any objections? Ms. Mathisen stated that she did not want her property damaged in any way• Ms. Gabel stated that the City Inspectors would make sure it would not be. Ms. Mathisen asked about the lighting? Ms. Gabel stated the lighting would have to follow code and would not be shining directly on her property. She asked Mr. Langseth about the trash container and if they would have a dumpster outside and where it would be located? Mr. Langseth stated he was not sure where it would be located' but they would follow the guidelines. It would be screened. The original drawing indicated it would be an enclosed structure with doors. He stated they were aware she was the neighbor and would do all they could to make it nice. APPEALS C014USSION MEETING, JUNE 12, 1979 - PAGE 7 MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Plemel stated that the firm had the interest of the neighborhood at heart and it would'be a nice building, better than what is there now. Mr. Barna stated that he felt it would be an improvement on the site and would improve the existing traffic situation. W. Kemper stated that his only concern was the variance they were acting on was not the one on the public notice. He had no objection to acting on it, but felt Council should be aware that the variance was different and would like 14r. Herrick to give an opinion on that at the Council meeting. Ms. Gabel stated she had no problem and felt it would be an improvement. She felt it would be better if they knew just what kind of tenant there would be,, but that was not possible at this point. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to Council approval of the variances as follows: 1)redixce the building setback from the street right- of-way from 35 feet to 15 feet, 2) reduce the parking setback from street right- of-way from 20 feet to 15 feet from the north property line, 3) to reduce the parking setback from the street right-of-way from 20 feet to 5 feet on the west property line, and 4) to reduce the parking setback from the street right-of-way from 20 feet to 15 feet on the south property line, to allow the construction of an office building at 5701 University Avenue NE. Council should note that the 4th variance was approved differently than was indicated in the Public Notice. The Public Notice indicated a reduction of the parking setback from 20 feet to 17 feet. Council and Mr. Herrick should act on that change. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel stated this would go to Council on July 9th. 3. 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 . J J`rG.L / . MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:4o P.M. Ms. Gabel asked &. Nedegaard to come forward and read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: APPEALS COMMISSION =- ING, JURE 12, 1 9 - PAGE 8 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 111 -45th Avenue N.E. 0 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 onto 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 IiARDSHIP: "We need additional room for the family as the children get older and require more space." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This house is located on the corner of 45th Avenue and 2nd Street with the house facing 45th Avenue. -Technically the front yard is on 2nd Street as it is the shortest side of the lot. The garage is exiting onto ' 45tii Avenue so there would be no encroachment into the boulevard area for parking vii th this addition. The house to the north of this lot is facing 2nd Street and is set back the required 35 feet but there is approximately 38 feet between the.addition and this structure to _avoid reducing the "line of sight". Mr.. Nedegaard gave the Commissioners a copy of his plans. He.stated that he faced 45th Avenue and would like a 10 foot variance which would make it 25 feet off 2nd Street rather than 35 feet. Ms. Gabel stated that even though Mr. Nedegaard faces 45th Avenue' 2nd,Street was considered the front yard because it is the narrow part of the lot. She noted that it was a nice house and well kept. Mr. Clark stated the house across the street had done the same thing. Ms. Gabel asked if the hedges were on his property? Mr. Nedegaard stated that some of the hedges sat on his propertyy but they belonged to his neighbor. ThEy would remain there. Ms. Gabel asked if the big tree would remain? W. Nedegaard stated it would. He also stated that the garage was in the front of the house and it would not look like an addition. Mr. Plemel asked if he was expanding the living area? APPEALS CONNISSION MEETING, JMIE 12p 19-72 - PAGE 9 Mir. Nedegaard stated he was expanding the size of two of the bedrooms and adding one. Ms. Gabel asked if he would have a full basement under the addition? Mr. Nedegaard stated he would. Ms. Gabel noted that the picture indicated there was aline of shurbs and a tree in the neighbors yard., so they would not be able to see the addition at all. So., in terms of visual encroachment., there would be none. Mr. Plemel asked if the other houses to the north were at 35 feet? Mr. Nedegaard stated that the next two were 35 feet., but from there they were staggered. Ms. Gabel noted that there would be no problem at the corner with the sight line. She asked about the roof line and the siding. Mr. Nedegaard stated that he would be doing the construction himself and the roof line would tie in with all new roofing and the siding would be the same. There were no comments from the audience. Mr. Barna asked if the people in Columbia Heights were notified. Mr. Clark stated that they sent one notice to the City Hall and it was up to them to notify the neighbors. Ms. Gabel asked if Mr-. Nedegaard had talked to the neighbors across the.street? Mr. Nedegaard stated he.had not. MOTION by Mr. Kemper' seconded by Mr. Plemel., to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYES VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE pLmLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Barna., seconded by Mr. Plemel., to approve the request for variance 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 construction of an addition to an existing house at 111 45th Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE., VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel informed the petitioner that he was free to get his Building Permit. 4. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205_OF_THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN R-3 uest by Gregory Videen., 5614 4th Street -NE$ Fridley$ Dun. 55432)• APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1.22 1979 PAGE 1p MOITTON by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE.. VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:51 P.M. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Videen to come forward and read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5614 - 4th Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.073, E1, requires that no off-street parking shall be located in the required front yard. Public purpose,served by this requirement is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The property has no on-site parking at this time. The property has been sold and FHA requires that an on-site parking area be Provided. C. -ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The structure on this 40 -foot lot has a front yard setback of approximately 30 feet and the alley in this block was vacated prohibiting off-street parking from the alley. The only feasible way to get the.parking off the street and on to the property would be to allow parking in the front yard. 11 Mr. Videen showed the Commissioners a copy of a picture taken of the area and pointed out that he had no access to the rear yard. He would like to put a 22 foot by 10 foot driveway.along the south property line. What he would like to do is get the curb cut. He stated there was only 3 feet on each side of his house. Ms. Gabel agreed there was no access to the back yard and noted that the alley was vacated which eliminated access into the back. Another house had a garage which could not be used because of the alley being vacated.. Mr. Kemper asked.if those people had used that garage? Mr. Videen stated that as far as he knows there has never been a car in that garage. APPEALS COMMISSION 1ETING! „JUNE 12' 1979 PAGE 11 Mr. Videen stated he had sold the house and the people buying were getting an FHA Loan. FHA won't approve the loan unless he can provide off-street parking. Mr. Barna stated that all they were really doing was legalizing an existing situation and allowing him to pave what he is presently using and to request the curb cut. He stated.there was no -other way to -park on that lot. He.asked what the clearance was -from the house to the lot line on the south side of the lot? Mr. Videen stated it was about 3 feet.+ Ms. Gabel asked what the requirement was between the paved area and the lot line? Mr. Clark stated there was no requirement but usually they recommended 3 feet.. Mr. Videen stated that he would like to keep it as close to the lot line as possible as it is in the front yard. Mr. Barna asked if it would be blacktop or concrete? Mr. Videen stated that all the driveways in the neighborhood with the exception of two were dirt or gravel. Ms. Gabel stated they had a new code that required a hard surface. Mr. Videen stated that he intended to put gravel on it,but if a hard surface was required, he would have to do that. Ms. Gabel stated that they required a hard surface. She asked if Mr. Clark had any idea how the alley was vacated? Mr. Clark stated he was not sure but a vacation is normally requested by the people living there. Also, notices are sent out. IW. Videen stated it was vacated in 1964. Mr. Paul Videen came forward and stated that he was the petitioner's father. He stated that his company was the fee -owner of the property and they have not been receiving notices of public hearings regarding this property. Also, they did not receive a notice of the vacation. They did not receive a notice of this hearing either. They were paying taxes on this property. Mr. Kemper stated that the notices were sent from the tax rolls. He stated that the address probably got the notice for the vacation. Mr. Barna stated that in talking about the property north of 57th Avenue, they were talking about a service drive east of it and asked where it would come in? Mr. Clark stated it would be between the buildings, and they still couldn't get to the back of the property. APPEALS COMMISSION NIEETTTJG, JUNE 12, 1979 4,m . _ , . PAGE�y� Ms. Gabel stated that she had talked to the owner of the house next door and he had no problems. Mr. Plemel asked where he parked? Mr. Gabel stated he had room on his property to get to the rear. Mr. Plemel stated that he felt Mr. Videen had a real hardship. Mr. Kemper stated that he was concerned about the notices. Mr. Clark stated that the contract purchaser should be notified and the occupant would be notified as long as he was homesteading the property. A renter normally would not be notified. Mrs. Lois Videen' the petitioner's mother: stated that the address was notified of the vacation: but apparently the person who was renting there at that time did not tell them about it. Mr. Plemel stated that the taxpayer address and the property address would be notified. Mr. Clark looked it up and stated the notices were delivered door to door. Ix. Videen asked if the driveway could be 10 x 22 rather than 10 x 25 in order to save the tree. He understood that 10 x 25 was code. W. Clark stated •that 10 x 20 was code and there would be no problem with that. Mr. Barna asked if he -didn't have to stay so far away from the building? Mr. Clark stated that they should try to stay 5 feet away, but he had enough room here. Mr. Kemper asked if the 25 feet included the boulevard? Mr. Videen stated it did not. Mr. Clark stated it was a 10 foot boulevard. Mr. Kemper stated that he would then pave the 10 foot boulevard plus another 22 feet? Mr. Videen stated that was correct. Ms. Gabel asked if Mr. Videen would need a bumper stop or something at the end of the driveway? Mr. Clark stated that he would be eight or ten feet from the house so he didn't think that would be necessary. APPEALS COmSSION MEETING JUNE 12 1979 o PACE �:3 Mr. Clark stated that they didn't ask for variances for the front yard setback, etc. on this 40 foot lot. He stated they did that intentionally because it is a legal non -conforming use and if asked for the variances, it would be very difficult to deal with them. The intent of the code is that a legal nonconforming use like this, if the house is destroyed, the lots comply. Mr. Plemel asked when this house was built? Mr. Paul Videen stated it was built in 1947. MOTION by NLr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:12 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to recommend to Council approval of the variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to allow off-street parking in the front yard of a single family dwelling in R-3 zoning, (Multiple Dwellings), the same being 561+ 4th Street NE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel informed the petitioner that this would go to Council on July 9th. 5. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE mwW. A-mF YARD SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET TO 3 FEET uiiwu�. au.u. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE' VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 9:15 P.M. Ms. Gabel noted that the garage was attached,.not detached. She asked the petitioner, Mr. David L. Phillips, 6565 Pierce Street NE, to come forward and read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6565 Pierce Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, #4 , requires a side yard setback of 5 feet on an attached garage Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide space between individual structures to reduce conflagration of f ire, to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies, and to limit the condition of crowding in a residential neighborhood. APPEALS COMMISSION IEETING,�JUNE 1.21 1979 �' - PAGE 14 B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We wish to change a one stall garage to a two stall garage as one car has to sit out and is aged much faster than normal." C. ADMINISTRATI B STAFF REVIEW: ..The existing attached single car garage is 10 feet from north.property line.and they wish to add on a 7 foot garage addition that would be only 3 feet from the line. The neighbor's house to the north is 29 feet from the common lot line., which would leave more than the 1,15--faot minimum requirement between adjoining garage and living areas. Mr. Phillips stated that they hada survey of the neighbors house and he gave the Commissioners a rough sketch of the proposed addition. They took the survey and measured 29 feet to his lot line. He stated that before he bought the house there was a shed there and there were several 4 x 4 posts on the lot. When he moved there, he tore down,the shed and he neighbor.asked if he could put a fence on the existing posts, so the fence is about 6 inches into his lot line. It is 9 feet.- 4 inches from the existing garage and 10 feet 4 inches to the lot line. Ms. Gabel asked if the fence would be removed? Mr. Phillips stated he would leave that to the option of the neighbors. If the neighbor wanted to move it over to his property line or remove it, that would be fine. Mr. Phillips stated that he might have to dig it up and move it over, but that would be up to the neighbor. Ms. Gabel asked how big the addition would be? Mr. Phillips stated that the existing garage door is 9 feet wide and a.double. garage door is 16 feet wide, which would be a 7 foot difference.. He was planning on moving the garage out 7 feet. The existing garage wall is 10 feet 4 inches from the property line and if'they move it out 7 feet it would be about 3 feet 4 inches from the property line. Ms. Gabel asked what the total size of the garage waul.d be? Mr. Phillips stated it would be about 21 x 26. The garage is the entire width and length of the house. Mr. Plemel stated that it still wouldn't be overly wide? Mr. Phillips stated that he has one small car and one regular size car and the trend is toward small cars. The garage is 26 feet long so there would be ample space for storage in the rear. He stated that a similar garage was added to the house two doors away. APPEALS COW4ISSION MEETING JUNE 12, 1979 - PAGE .15 Nis. Gabel asked Mr. Phillips if he had talked to the people at 6581? Mr. Phillips stated he had talked to them and they had no problem. Their house sits quite a ways away. Ms. Gabel asked if he would do the work himself? Mr. Phillips stated that he would do part of it and have a coutractor help. Ms. Gabel asked if he would tie the roof line in.and also asked what he would do about the siding? Mr. Phillips stated that the contractor would help with the roof line and it would tie in. He planned on repainting the house and the garage when this is done. Ms. Gabel stated that his plan would meet the intent of the code. She asked if they had talked to any other neighbors? Mrs. Phillips stated she had and they had no problem with it. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC SEARING CLOSED AT 9:25 P.M. Mr. Plemel stated: that he did not see any problem with this. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the request pursuant to.Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback for an attached garage from the required 5 feet to 3 feet, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing garage at 6565 Pierce Street NE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel informed the petitioner that he was free to get a Building Permit. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Me. Gabel stated that in the past whenever they have changed a variance to more, they have always had to renotify and sometimes have tabled -a petition until it was renotified. She stated that a non -conforming use does not go with the property and here they were tearing down the building and starting from scratch. Mr. Clark stated that he understood that because it was an existing condition of zero lot line and they wanted to increase it to 15 feet, a variance wouldn't be necessary really. The paved portion of the lot is on the lot line. This creates a zero lot line.