The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 87-18CfIYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 Richard and Jayne Franta 6251 Fairbow Drive N. E. Fridley, n; 55432 June 26, 1987 On June 15, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR 487-18, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Addition, the same being 6251 Rainbow Drive N. E. with the following stipulations: 1. There be no openings in the west wall of the addition that would bp - closer than 20 feet from the existing structure to the west 2 A certified land survey be obtained before the issuance of a building permit. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Delta r tment at 571-3450. Sincerely, James L. Robinson Fla --ming Coordinator JLF/ct,, Please review the noted stipulations, sign the stater:ent below and return one eoly to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 10, 1987. ai-II-b-Z> o Kk; Z, P�- - '4 -1Z -8B'. r-®® 15P A�Ocr_o Concur with action taken e � l fic k �6� t " CRYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 Richard and Jayne Franta 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, M 55432 June 26, 1987 On June 15, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR #87-18, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Addition, the same being 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. There be no openings in the west wall of the addition that would by closer than 20 feet from the existing structure to the west 2 A certified land survey be obtained before the issuance of a building permit. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, James L. Robinson Planning Coordinator JLR/dm Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 10, 1987. Concur with action taken o � e POMNSSION APPLICATION REVIEW Department Number File Date Meeting Date CITYOF Planning 42 5/07/87 5/26/87 FWDLEY File Address/Description VAR #87.18 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST 6251 Rainbow Drive Richard and Jayne Frant RETURN TO PLANNING reduce side y;§Erd s.b. from 10' to 2' DARYL COMMENTS ----DEBBIE JIM X111 DEBBIE-- ' PJOHN DEBBIE--- D DARREL EBBIE CLYDE --DEBBIE ---�-- p MARK —DEBBIE LEON-' — DEBBIE — CITY OF FR1DLEY� 6431 UNI mr AVE. N.F. VARIANCE REQUEST FORM FRIDLEY, MN 55432 :w (612) 571-3450 VARIANCE # �� VARIANCE FEE RECEIPT # a (oaS SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE S/Aa O -r PROPERTY INFORMATION/ n PROPERTY ADDRESS �Do'5 ( (R AIri.06LV �✓il' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT Z BLOCK 2— TRACT/ADDITION PRESENT ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building, variance(s), where applicable. 13011 0 4 A 0Q)T1ON tre55 -t' 4A N tD �i �1QD�1 PKC>Ll N Er_- Ai4fl /Tcti+�C GJ - Section of the Code: List specific heirdship(s) which require the variance(s): 1-14 FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAME (please print) JA)*4f"4, 5 11 PHONE 5-71._s, i ADDRESS (6d 51 1<A4rn)66W LA&' SIGNATURE �i )ATE Note to# ` 'urcha-zarp,#ko,,Vr°c..s.sa €####### PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME (please print) iq--wij PHONE ADDRESS -- ---- - SIGNATURE DATE APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: FOR CITY USE ONLT Notification of petitioner and property owners within 200 feet: Name/Address Date notified I { { { { { I { { { { { { { { { { { i { i { { { { { { { { { 1 { { { { { { 07 May 1937 Darrel Clark City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley,, CMN 55432 Dear Pair. Clark: We spoke on the telephone a few days ago aoout city building codes which apply to my home at 6251 Rainbow Dr. NE. You asked me to check the sketch of the location of my home in relation to my naic.hbors house that I sent you. Enclosed you will find my corrected diagram. As you can seee the property line is slanted with rsspect to my house so that the back corner is only five (5) feet from the property line. This is my best guess as to the actual location of the property line- but it should be fairly accurate. It could be as much as 6 or 7 feet from my house but it is not the 10 feet -you stated as the code requirement. Since the line is slanted,, the addition we had in mind (with basement) would bring the dwelling within a foot or two of the property line. We feel that this, addition is vary necessary for our family. My retarded son is presently sharing a room with my older son and the combination does not i work vary well. My retarded son must have his own room so that he is not able to destroy or tamper with toys., books and school Projects which belong to our older son. The retarded son very much needs an area that is his own. Such an area would not have to have locked doors., bolt<�d .drawers and everything placed on shelves out of reach. This is the present state of my sons room. We have looked for larger homes in Fridley but have not found any to our liking as yet. The addition pictured converts one oresent bedroom into a hall and additional bathroom. The addition is then two bedrooms. The net result is to add one bedroom and a bath to out :orasent house. Given the location of the smallest present bedroom which will be used for the new hallway and bath., it is not very feasible to move the addition the required ten feet to meet the code requirement. Such a move would: require the addition of an extra hallway to access the bedroomf make the added bathroom smaller, place the bathroom in a position where it could not be considered as a master bath in the one bedroom., complicates the roof line considerably., shuts off a basement window which is needed for light and venting., shuts off the window presently in the kitchen., and require us to move the present electric. --1 meter and mast. I have included drawings of the present house., our planned addition and the addition that would be required by moving ten feet. I think you will agree that our plan adds value to our home while a shifted addition breaks it up and detracts from the other rooms. I have enclosed the check for �5-`U and the completed variance request form for your consideration. I understand that this request will be taken up at the next board meeting and we will be notified of the decision. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 571-3543 (home) or 631-4332 (work). I am usually at work between the hours of 6 AM and 6PM but you may be able to reach my Wife at the home number. I would appreciate any information you could supply. a ' t 25 27 28 �km 1 . 33 t9 't 10 3 37 12 39 93 40 14 42 15 YB 171 20 25 27 28 �km 1 . 33 34 35 3 37 35 39 40 41 42 66 67 ?:73 74 75 70 rAmr G7YOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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, May 26, 1987, in regard to the following matter: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #87-18, by Richard and Jayne Franta, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03, D, 2a, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required side yard setback frau 10 feet to 2 feet to allow the construction of additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Addition, the same being 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN APPEALS CD M'IISSION 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. Appeals 5/12/87 VAR #87-18 6251 Rainbow Drive Richard and Jayne Franta Patrick Boyle Walter Zembal June Wood 6261 Rainbow Drive 6240 Sunrise Drive 270 Sylvan Lane Fridley; MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, M 55432 Richard T. Franta Loyd Tanner Ernest Powell 6251 Rainbow Drive 6260 Rainbow Drive 6241 Sunrise Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, INN 55432 Willard Bolling John Reeves Wayne Brandt 6241 Rainbow Drive 6250 Rainbow Drive 6231 Sunrise Drive Fridley,.MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon Knutsen Lovern Otten Robert Congdon 6231 Rainbow Drive 6240 Rainbow Drive 6221 Sunrise Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley., MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Anthony Olesinski John Snyder Albert Michalik 6221 Rainbow Drive 6230 Rainbow Drive 6210 Sunrise Dr. Fridley,.NN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Albert Michalik John Holm Clarence Graves 6210 Sunrise Dr. N.E. 6220 RAinbow Drive 6220 Sunrise Drive Fridley, MN 554327 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Clarence Graves William Camp Thomas"Gliadon 6220 Sunrise Drive 6280 University Ave. 6230 Sunrise Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Gliadon Robert Davis Walter Zembal 6230 Sunrise Drive 280 Sylvan Lane 6240 Sunrise Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN .55432 Item #2, May 26, 1987 VAR #87-18 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SEINED BY REQUIREMEM: Section 205.07.3, D. 2a requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living area and side property lines. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: (See attached description of hardships.) C. IVE STAFF REVIW: The petitioners are proposing to build an addition to their existing house. The proposed addition would extend to within approximately two feet of the side lot line due to the fact that this lot line cuts across at an angle. The petitioner desires this location for the addition so that it lines up with the rest of the house. If the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to recommend. 4_4 VAR'#87-60 Ridiard & Jane Franta WAY DRIVE W. —d-10—ia IY (3D) (top) (40) (4, A UDL TO RS,.,,.,. o N 4, A N IV4 � SUBUIVIS10 cp E NO 59 SET M dui) (0) Via) z4 DRIVE 2,ND.,, (47) kt.) 65 (440) 7 14 LANE COO lud LJ m 'S. 61 ST LOCATION MAP- ov PF sk� may= s -7777 h AN if�.SAI EQ w r ear qgvAna _ ',j4 { 'z w� ov PF sk� may= s -7777 h AN if�.SAI EQ w I VAR #87-18 1 0 O Richaxd. &! Jane Esta' it LU I i IL - _I __ ._. �.. .. i ..{_. ,i_ ; -I i ,I �. ..I __ _ I _ �- , j I. i _ i III I II IT- zu- 1 d 1 t I J-4-1 I j- 1 Pi O 14TH CLO M ll I CL -0 I M*5T. O*TIA KIT I _ � � �- ! - -f-- -'-- r i �� i j � ,. � � � i �-- - - � - , � � � 1 ;_ -�- i- 1 i I i i --f-- r - r __ ._i_ � 1 � i i —�-- --1— � .— — � a i � I -+- -;----1-- -� - --- - - 1 - + - i i 1 -- --- +- - �- ,_ I i �� i I i -+- - � - i I � _; i l i � ! � � � -�-.. j i j I I i j ' i j I __ - '- L . I I I 1 i i i ---1- _ � I � { f i 1 ' 1_I � � i. I i j 1 �- � f 1 i, � � � � - r--- � } __� _�. r i- � 1- �_ 1 �_ - ' � f -- r-- _ i_ _f � ; i 1 _— I � -i � } __ ; �_ i � i- i � � I -- � i j j I i j �� i __ . _ �__ I � I � I � I I � i I � � i � j I 1._� f � j 1 I � I i i � - �_ _ � � ' � � i f I i i -- j J I I' t _ � I � � 1 j i I � � � 1 ' II -_� --- I�-- j' +--- �__ � ' __-I--�----I 1 � � 1 � � � ' � j i 1 ' � � � j -- - ---t-._ - �---�------. - _-�----�--- - }II- 1 ---�---- --+-- � - - - � _1 - t - i 1 - -�--- -7 �� I�I ' � 'i ---I--1-----�-__ --t -t •- -t _j - __ _;� ' i i I � I I i � � f 7--- �- -.i__ _� _�_ _+ -� j � I -._ i ) J_ � _i 4 ii 1 _._' i -- � -� - � j k I, __�_ � � _ � i; 1 i � _, f � I -' -- + � - � � � t -I- I � ,; i _� '��--1 - -� t � ? � t t --- -- �- --- � -,-- �---- {- -- ---T r-- -�- � I � I � �I � I � .. I � � � I i � �� ' � ! i, -- -- i - - - -- ! , � i i i I � � � , �_ i � -�-- _'_ i � t- ' � � { � i { � i i I - i _� i _7 --1 T i - -�-- I �� i i � � i i i i I � � E � � f _>—_ _r. _i _ � ; { i ,_ __ 1 —� I i ,, � _- r- ! � I. ' -- - � I i � � - � - ! r � I i � -;-- - -� , - �- +- � ` I j i i � � � i - I i i i. I I F ! j ' i i _ i I � � r I �, I _ i _. I � �-- • I i I � � i � i _ -- � I i - i- - I it � � i r I � � � � � i ' i I � j i i ;. i __ _� . � � � � � I I j '� �-- i i ! i�, � � __. _.. _ _ _.. _ _._1_ _ ... i � � � ! � �I �� I � I -- - --- ---- - 4-- 1 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 3 Mr. Clark stated he did not write that, but he thought it meant that the architectural exterior of the buildings were such that it did not look lik plain old warehouse. The buildings would be well constructed brick buffy in s with a low profile. / Mr. b Maertens stated he did purchase the land before the property cross the st et was rezoned. These were relatively small lots, about 20 ft. deep a d 100 ft. setbacks on Phase I and Phase II would cause a evere loss of proper . As he understood it, a 100 ft. setback was intend on Main St. when industrial as across from residential; but in this case, the artment complex was on into an already zoned industrial area, a�A. e did not think the 100 t. setback was appropriate in this case. Mr. Clark stated\wi*n I and Phase III would not be do a in the first year, and variances usire after one year, at which me the petitioner has to come in fewal. Since the petitioner w s pretty sure that Phase II would b3-5 years and Phase III of er that, he would recommend that if the Appeission recommends approval of the variances that they also recommend tariances be approved fo a period of five years, and then at the end rs, if the building are not finished, the petitioner would have to coto he City for a re wal. Mr. Maertens stated he realize thatvari ces expire after one year, and that was fine if the City decid to ext nd those variances. He just wanted the City to go on record that it ad n objections to this development. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Maertens to bKefly describe his development plans. Mr. Maertens stated that rather an ca 1 it office/warehouse space, they prefer to call it office servi space, ecause he thought the modern office/ warehouse building space was esigned dif rently than, for example, most of the buildings presently alo Main Street. Architecturally speaking, there were some pretty coarse -lo king buildings al g there. His buildings were more along the lines of a East River Road Bu iness Center, more attractive, higher quality buildin _ Mr. Richard H/indtrial 200 Riverview Terrace, stated a owned Block 7, Onaway, and Block 5, ch Estates. He stated again this was another business center in an zoning, and he had expressed is objections to that at the May 20ing Commission meeting, in that th City was circumventing the zoning cospecial use permits and "sleight of and". Mr. Harris asked if this property was in the tax increment istrict. Mr. Mae tens stated it was not, and he was not receiving any p lic financing. tor. arris stated he thought Mr. Maertens had a valid point, tbat the City sh ld have taken his property into consideration when the rezoned he 22 res to the north of it residential. He stated Mr. Maertens should of have even had to apply for variances. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 _ PAGE 4 Mr. Barna stated he agreed. He thought Mr. Maertens' property and the operty to the east had been taken into consideration before that rezoning to place. He knew it was addressed in discussions at the Appeals Commission meet' g. MOTION b Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public hearing close t 7:49 p.m. Mr. Barna stated t t he had made the assumption that when the Appeals Commission approved a variances for the apartment complex that the industrial zoned property and the eneral business zoned properties already in existence would not be affected wi the normal setbacks being increased. So, he was extremely surprised to see his come before the Appeals Commission. Personally, he felt that the zoning was ter the fact. The City knew this property would be developed either industrial r commercial before the apartment complex rezoning went through. This pro rty should not be penalized for a change in a zoning in the area. Mr. Sherek stated he agreed. The admi 'stratively imposed hardship was obvious. He would be in favor of recomm ding approval of the variances. Ms. Savage also agreed. Mr. Betzold stated that as pointed out by Mr. Bar a, it was fairly obvious there was a hardship. The intent of the code was b ing met by the heavy landscaping to screen the two areas. He stated it to ked like a good project. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance requests, VAR #87-17, by M -B Propertle with the recommendation that due to the scheduling of development that the variances be extended for a period of five years. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the otion carried unanimously. Mr. Betzold stated this item would go to City Council on June 15. \ 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST_, VAR #87-1.8, BY RICHARD AND JAYNE FRANTA ,)111 -IL UL 11\V VL.J 1 IV111\UV" UI\1 v L n. L• , 1 1\1✓LV I , 1 n�♦ , �/JTJL♦ MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public hearing open at 7:51 p.m. Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report: APPEALS C014MISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 1 PAGE 5 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6251 RAINBOW DRIVE N.E. VAR #87-18 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3, D, 2a, requires a side yard setback of 10 feet between any living area and side property lines. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow for aestheti- cally pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: (Please see Exhibit A for a description of the hardship.) C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF'REVIEW: The petitioners are proposing to build an addition to their existing house. The proposed addition would extend to within approximately two feet of the side lot line due to the fact that this lot line cuts across at an angle. The petitioner desires this location for the addition so that it lines up with the rest of the house. If the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to recommend. Mr. Clark stated that if the -variance was approved, he would add a stipulation that the new west wall of the addition be one-hour fire -rated and no openings in that wall, at least until the wall gets behind the house to the west. Mr. Clark stated the corner of the petitioner's house and the edge of the neighbor's house (to the west) in the front was 23 ft. and 19-20 ft. between the rear corners of both houses. The petitioner would like to add 14 ft. off the back keeping the straight line of the house. He stated part of the problem was the petitioner's house was built only 5 ft. from the lot line in the rear. He was not sure of the reason for that, but there had been a surveying error in other parts of Sylvan Hills so that might have been the reason in this case also. Mr. Clark stated that in the agenda, the petitioner had drawn the plan for the proposed addition he would like. He had also drawn two alternatives --one to put the bedroom and bath off the back of the house but ten feet over which was a less desireable alternative and one to put the bedroom and bath on the second floor which was probably not too economically feasible. Mr. Franta stated they presently have a three bedroom house. They have three children --2 sons and 1 daughter. One son is retarded and is presently APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 6 sharing a bedroom with the other son. As a result, the other son has his belongings, school books, school projects, etc., crushed and broken by the retarded son. They need to add on another bedroom so the retarded son can have his belongings in an open environment. So, the primary hardship was to get another bedroom for the other son. Mr. Franta stated they could add on without a variance by moving the addition over 10 feet. By doing that, it would block the kitchen window and basement window and cut out the ventilation to the basement. It would also change the master bedroom and bath into separate bedrooms and a landlocked bathroom which would not be connected to either of the bedrooms. It was his opinion that a bathroom in the middle that was not connected to any bedroom would be more of a detriment to the house and would decrease the value of the house. He felt adding on in the middle would break the house up into segments and would occupy too much space in hallways. Ms. Franta stated their retarded son was 7 years old, but acted about the age of a two-year-old. He would not progress much past a 3-4 year-old. She stated he needed constant supervision and care. He was a walker but did not talk. Ms.Savage asked about the alternative of adding the bedroom and bath on the second floor. Mr. Franta stated that adding on the second floor would require significant more piping and ducting to get heating and for the bathroom. It would require tearing out some of the existing walls. It would also cost significantly more to add on on the second floor. Mr. Willard Bolling, 6241 Rainbow Drive, stated he was the property owner to the west. He wanted to know if the wall of the addition would be 2 ft. from the lot line or the eaves. Mr. Franta stated the wall of the addition would be.2 ft. from the.lot line, so the eaves would be quite close to the lot line. Mr. Sherek stated that Mr. Clark had mentioned a surveying error in this neighborhood. Had Mr. Franta gotten a recent survey before proposing this addition? Mr. Franta stated he had not, but would get a survey done before any construction. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. & Mrs. Bolling if they could foresee the possibility of adding on to the east end of their. house in the back and if they had any objection to the addition as proposed by Mr. Franta. Mr. Bolling stated that as far as they were concerned, they had no need to add onto the house. He did not know what a future owner might'want to do. As far as he and his wife were concerned, they did not object to the addition. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 7 fir. Betzold stated that even though fir. & Mrs. Bolling did not object to the addition, it did concern him that a future owner might want to build on the back towards the Franta's house. If this variance was approved, the Commission would have to deny any future variance request because of the congested area already. MOTION by fir. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public hearing closed at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Barna stated he did not like to see an addition with a jog in the.wall; yet, he also did not like to see a wallcoming so close to the property line. With the proposed 2 ft. from the lot line with a 24 inch overhang, it would put the overhang on the lot line or over the lot line. Dr. Vos stated he had some real concerns with getting this close to a lot line with any structure. Looking out the dining room windows from the neighbors to the west,the proposed bedroom would look like it was in their back yard. He just felt there was another creative way of getting this kind of space but over another 6-8 ft. He was already uncomfortable with the existing 5 ft. at the back corner of the house. Mr. Sherek stated he had the same concerns. Also, he was very concerned about a "zero" clearance; and without a current survey, they are not really sure if the property line was right. fis. Savage stated she sympathized with the petitioner's problems and there was obviously a need for an addition. She also could understand why the petitioner wanted to build the addition in the location he had proposed, but she shared the same concerns expressed by the other Commissioners in bringing the addition so close to the property line. Mr. Betzold stated he felt all the Commissioners were very sympathetic to the petitioner's situation, but they also had a mandate they had to follow that there had to be something unique about the property that would make it a hardship to go along with the code. He did not think the hardship was quite as defined as it needed to be. In any event, he would definitely like this to go on to the City Council as the Appeals Commission was very uncom- fortable about any kind of structure being so close to the property line. MOTION by Ms. Savage to send variance request, VAR #87-18, by Richard and aT yne Franta, on to the City Council without a recommendation. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Barna stated he would like to recommend that the Commission recommend approval of a variance from 10 ft. to 5 ft. There was already the need for a 5 ft. variance, because the house was already only 5'ft. from the property line. It would mean moving the addition over to the east 5 ft., and the eaves would not be any closer to the lot line than the existing eaves are. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 8 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #87-18, by Richard and Jane Franta, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03, D, 2a, of the Fridley City Code to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet, to allow the construction of additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Addition, the same being 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, with the following stipulations: 1. There be no openings in the west wall of the addition that would be closer than 20 ft. from the existing structure to the west. 2. A certified land survey be obtained before the issuance of a building permit. Upon a voice vote, Barna, Sherek, Savage, -and Vos'voting aye, Betzold voting nay, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried. Mr. Betzold stated this item would go to City Council on June 15. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #87-19, BY JETINY RILEY, PURSUANT "� TO CHAPTER 205.07.03. D. 3a. OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE REAR, RCH INTO LEGAL CONFORMING USE ON LOT 2. BLOCK 1. RICE CREEKASTATES MOTION b r. Barna, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to ope>'_� pc hearing. Upon a voice te, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzclared the public hearing open at •23 p.m. Chairperson Betzold rid the Administrative Staff Report: ISTRATIVE STAfK REPORT 1531 OODSIDE C RT N.E. R #a?' -'19 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREWNT: Section 205.07.03. D, requires a ear yard setback of not less than 25 feet. Public 'purposes4rved by this requirement is ", -,to provide rear yard space to be Xed for green areas which enhance he neighborhood. B. STATED WMDSHIP: e'er my husband was diagnosed with leukemia, we decide to build porch to avoid bug bites which will result in an infect' n. died in May 18, 1985." EXHIBIT A 07 May 1937 `&rrel Clark -Ity of Fridley ,431 University Ave. NE ridley. MN 55432. .;ear Mr. Clark; me spoke on -the telephone a few days ago aboutcity buildingme to ccodes which of apply to my home at 6251 Rainbow Dr. NE. You asked tnq location of my home in relation to my neiyh'1-Jors house that I sent you. nclosed you will find my corrected diagram. As you can seep the property .Line is slanted with respect to my house so that the back corner is only rive C5) feat from the aroparty line. This is my best guess as to the It actual location of the property line but it should be fairly accurate. could ae as much as o or 7 feet from my house but it is not the 13 faet you stated as the code requirement. Since the line is slantadr the addition we rad in mind (With besemant) would bring the dwelling within a foot or two of tna property line. oe feel that this addition is vary necessGry for our family. my retardad son is presently snaring a room with my older son and the combination does not ,cork vary well. Ply retarded son must have his own room so that he is not able to destroy or tamper with toyst books and school irojihti which is belong own. to our older son. Tne retarded son vary much heads 2' area would not nava to naSuch an ve locked doors placed bolted•drdwers and averythinc_+ ent state on shelves out of reach. This is the pres. . sons room. sayet. luOKad for larger nomas in Fridley but have not foundd anny y to our likingg rhe addition pictured converts one present bedroom into a hall and additional oathroom. The addition is than two bedrooms. The net result is to add one ciedroom ano a oath to out present house. Vivian the location of the smallest present bbedroom®which va will be onused for the new hallway and baths it is not very feasible to required tan feat to meet the code requirement- rhallway toch a accessvtheobedroom� require the addition of an a make the added bathroom smaller here it place the bathroom in a bath position w not be considered as a Ana one bedroo complicates the roof line considerablyr shuts otf a basement window which is neadad for light and ventinge shuts off the window presently in the kitchens and require us to rove the present ?l?ctric_l m'ter End mast - 1 have included drawings of the present housee our olan einkdditiyou on end the addition that would be required by moving t . that our plan adds value to our home while a shifted addition breaks it up and detracts from the other rooms. I have enclosed the check for $60 and the completed variance request form understand that this request will be taken uo at for your consideration. I u the decision. the next board meeting and we will be notified of 3 If you have any questions I can be reachehoursat 571 3543 andmel or 63Youmay (;ark). I am usually at work between the at the home number. I would appreciate any be able to reach my wife information you could supply. Sincerely; COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15. 1987 the variance could be granted for two years. Mr. Maertens stated if the variance was gran for only two years, they would be penalized for not being able t onstruct all three buildings at one time. He stated he knows the rd building wouldn't be constructed in two years, possibly not in fiCe years. MOTION by Councilma oodspeed to grant the variance requests, VAR X87-17, for a five year riod taking into consideration the hardship imposed on this pro when the Council rezoned property for the apartment complex. Secon by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mlayb'r� Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR 087-18, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2, SYLVAN HILLS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6251 RAINBOW DRIVE N.E., BY RICHARD AND JAYNE FRANTA: Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated this is a request to reduce the side yard setback from 10 to 5 feet at 6251 Rainbow Drive in order to allow an addition to an existing home. He stated the petitioner reviewed several alternatives and felt this proposal best served their needs. Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with two stipulations which he outlined. Mrs. Franta stated she and her husband have discussed the proposed addition and are considering another alternative. She stated they are concerned whether the house is "legal" because of only the five feet from the lot line in the rear of the property. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the house is already existing and grandfathered in so there is no legal problem with selling the house. Mrs. Franta stated since they are considering alternative plans, the Council did not have to take action on this variance request. C. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAN MY - RICE CREEK ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BF,ING 1531 NUUP511)h COURT N.E., BY JENNY RILEY: Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated this is a request to reduce the rear yard setback from -25 to 14 feet to bring an already existing three season porch into a legal conforming use. He stated the person who built this por "did not obtain a building permit and has since passed away. He sta the property has been sold and the previous owner or new owner wer not aware that this property was not in compliance with the code. Mr.,R-6bertson stated a neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Resch, called and stated -12- • � f COUNCIL iMEETING OF JUNE 15. 1987 wareho�se/office buildings. He stated normally a variance is granted for one year, however, because this is a phased development, the petitioner is requesting the variance extend for a five year period. Mr. Robertson stated the hardship cited was that a 100 foot setback on 83rd was imposed when t e City recently rezoned the land to residential north of 83rd. Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commisson at their May 26 meeting recommended approval of the variances. Counciihe man Fitzpatrick stated it seems fairly heavy screening is required along north edge in anticipation of the effect on adjacent residential proper iy. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated Raffaele's Restaurant is set back quite far and this proposed building would be closer to the street. He felt there could be a smaller building in order to reduce the variance request. Mayor Nee asked what setback would be required if the City had not rezoned for the apartment complex. Mr. Robertson stated it would be 35 feet. Mr. Qureshi stated he didn't have a problem with Phase I, but could not anticipate what would happen in the future. He stated, normally, variances expirI in one year. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated it seems to make sense to treat these buildings separately since they will be constructed in phases. He stated as development occurs, there may be a different feeling as to how the Council wishes the property to develop. Mr. Mertens stated they are looking at a long range plan for the total paree -He stated if they cannot build a certain amount of square feet, they probably won't build at all. He stated no variance is needed for the first) phase, but he wanted to know what can be built in the future. He stated when the adjacent property was rezoned, one of the stipulations was it no impact on the industrial property in the area. Mayor Nee stated he did not recall this being part of the stipulations for the rezoning. Mr. Herrick also stated he had no recollection of this being one or the stipulations and if it becomes an issue, it would have to be checked. Councilman Schneider stated he felt there was a hardship created by the City's rezoning for the apartment complex. He stated if that property had not been rezoned, Mr. Maertens would be able to build according to his proposed plans. Coun ilwoman Jorgenson stated she believed Mr. Maertens statement was corr ct and when the City rezoned the property for the apartment complex, it w n't to interfere with other uses. Councilman Goodspeed stated he would have no problem granting the variance if the entire construction were to occur at this time. He thought perhaps -11-