Loading...
VAR 07.76of Fridlvy LIU11ACI -7 59- f : AT THE 7GP or 1lfc TWINS APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS 1 4 e e COMMUNITY GEVVI GPMENT DIV, PROKcrivi, INSPECTION CITY HALL . FRIDLEY 55832 NUTABI'R REV, OAT[ VAGP OF APPROVED F4Y 91.0-E•23 1. 3/21/75 1 2 800 Name., Address Phone Legal Lot No. Plock Description�* — ��hQU4&-,w,',-s do. Tract or Rddne Variance Request(s); including stated 1aarr1shi.i,s (attac)j plat. or suzvey of propc-rty showing building, variances, etc., YJ ere apI}licab e) S' el D to Lf d Meeting Date pe , Receipt No'iqn,;I Lure 4 190-.00- LL3 comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date ,2 k::"X 7-e 7*,e ,I)o 46) � y:,uElJEcr AT THE TOP OF THF: TWINS '(Staff C01MAUNITY DCVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPCCTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432hUA4tE.R `___ •' G12•SGO-:+a SU APPLICATION TO BOARD OF Report) APPEALS TIE V. 970-r23 1 UAIt 3/21/75 I'AbE OF 2 2 APP"OVE.IJ BY £300 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by List members, elate notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Date Name To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property.,owners having property within 200 feet notified: i -7 Woodcrest Baptistr'Church 6875 University Avenue N.E. /30!?� Phone or Mail 1031, CIJ By Whom Notified Mr. & Mrs. James Becker 571 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Jones - 561 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. e & Mrs. Richard Gerritsen - 551 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. ' Mr. & Mrs. Roberts Hagelin 545 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. Mr. &•Mrs. Robert Barnette 541 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. .& Mrs. William Boatman - 531 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. s, Mr. I Mr. iii. & Mrs. Marcel Pattock - 401 Rice Creek Blvd N.E. & Mrs. Gary Anderson 415 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. &Mrs. Gerald Maeckelbergh-425 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs-Donald Gustafson-437 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Ulvin-449 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Arden Foss-461 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Dean A1berson 473 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Charles Johnson-400 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Donald F. Vant - 406 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. James Wendt-412 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Reynold Swansen 418 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Charles Johanson-424 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Roy Engelbritsen -430 Rice Rice Creek Blvd. Mr. -Phillip Eberhard 436 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 437 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 115.02, 5, B, requiring a 6 foot fence around swimming pools. Public purpose served by this requirement is to protect unescorted intruders from the dangers of the pool area. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner said their fence was a vertical redwood non -climbable fence between 5 to 6 feet in height around the perimeter of the back yard and was completed before April 15, 1976 before the ordinance requiring a 6 foot fence was established. Additionally the petitioner states that the neighbors share the feeling that aesthetically 6 foot fences are deterrents to the neighborhood. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing vertical redwood fence surrounding the backyard of 437 Rice Creek Blvd. was constructed this past spring before the ordinance went into effect. The old ordinance required only a 4 foot fence. The new ordinance went into effect on May 15, 1976. The new ordinance was written, in part, because the City felt that a four foot chain link fence around a pool was not enough of a deterrent to small children entering the pool area. This fence is hard to climb because there are no horizontal slots to provide steps. There appear to be neighboring fences adjacent to the North, East and South sides of the fence in question. The proximity of these fences would appear to make it more difficult to scale than a single fence. A possible solution, through technically difficult, would be to raise alternate slots of the fence to a six foot height from grade around the entire fence perimeter. These slats would be approximately 6" apart. Several pool building permits have been issued since the new ordinance went into effect, and several existing fences have been altered in order to meet this requirement. Staff's concern in this matter is that the "intent" of the ordinance is maintained. I OFFICAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION 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, August 10, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of the Fridley City Code, Section 115.02, 5, B. to,)reduce the 6 foot fence requirement around swimming pools to 5 feet to'allow the utilization of an existing vertical redwood fence, located on Lot 4, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addi- tion, the same being 437 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Donald Gustafson, 437 Rice Creek Boulevard,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 Commission will have the final action on this request, 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. OFFICAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION 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, August 109 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of the Fridley City Code, Section 115.02, 5, B, to,reduce the 6 foot fence requirement around swimming pools to 5 feet to allow the utilization of an existing vertical redwood fence, located on Lot 4, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addi- tion, the same being 437 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Donald Gustafson, 437 Rice, Creek Boulevard Ni`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 Commission will have the final action on this request, 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. 'Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 9 objection. 140TION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission grant the request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 115.02, 5, B, TO REDUCE THE 6 FOOT FENCE REQUIREMENT AROUND S11IMING POOLS TO 5 FEET, TO ALLOW THE UTILIZATION OF AN EXISTING VERTICAL REDWOOD FENCE, LOCATED ON LOT 42 BLOCK 11 HOLIDAY HILLS SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 137 RICE CREEK BLVD. NE., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Donald Gustafson, 437 Rice Creek Blvd., N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). 140TION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 115.02, 5, B. requiring a 6 foot fence around swimming pools. Public purpose served by this requirement is to protect unescorted intruders from the dangersof the pool area. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner said their fence was a vertical redwood non -climbable fence between 5 to 6 feet in height around the perimeter of the back yard and was completed before April 15, 1976 before the ordinance requiring a 6 foot fence was established. Additionally the petitioner states that the neighbors share the feeling that aesthetically 6 foot fences are deterrents to the neighborhood. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing vertical redwood fence surrounding the backyard of 437 Rice Creek Blvd. was constructed this past spring before the ordinance went into effect. The old ordinance required only a 4 foot fence. The new ordinance went into effect on May 15, 1976. The new ordinance was written,"in part, because the City felt that a four foot chain link ,fence around a pool was not enough of a deterrent to small children entering the pool area. This fence is hard to climb because there are no horizontal slots to provide steps. There appear to be neighboring fences adjacent to the North, East and South sides of the fence in question. The proximity of these fences would appear to make it more difficult to scale than'a single fence. A possible solution, though technically difficult, would be to raise alternate slots of the fence to a six foot height from grade around the entire fence perimeter. These slats would be approximately 6" apart. Several pool building permits have been issued since the new ordinance went into effect, and several existing fences have been altered in order to meet this requirement. Staff's concern in this matter is that the "intent" of the ordinance is maintained. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 10 . Mr. Donald Gustafson approached the Board to present his request. He stated that the fence was put up prior to the ordinance changing, and it was a non - climbable vertical fence that was no less than 5' and in some areas 6' high. He said he paid over $600 for the fence and to raise it to 6' would probably cost another $600. He added that the pool had just recently been put in. Mr. Kemper asked why the variance was requested now. Chairperson Schnabel said Mr. Gustafson had put in the fence before the ordinance was changed, and he put in the pool after the ordinance was changed. Mr. Holden commented that one of the stipulations when someone applied to build a pool was that the applicant have a 6' fence, and Mr. Gustafson already had a 5' fence. Mr. Kemper then asked how he could go ahead and build a pool without a variance, and Mr. Holden said the fence was not required until the pool was built. Chairperson Schnabel said that Mr. Gustafson applied for a building permit for the pool on June 23rd and on that date a letter was sent to him from the Environmental Officer, Steve Olson. In the letter, she said, the requirements for pool construction were listed, and included in that was an item which said "A fence or other suitable barrier, a minimum of six (6) feet high, that affords no external hand or foot holds and which is impenetrable by toddlers, must be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool. All gates and other accesses shall be equipped with self-closing and self -latching devices which are capable of being locked." Mrs. Schnabel said the pool was constructed in June, and the stipulation on the Building Permit says "As per letter dated June 23, 1976". Mr. Holden said that the final inspection on the pool couldn't be done until the variance was granted or the fence rai3ed to 61. Mrs. Schnabel suggested to Mr. -Holden that the variance on the fence should have been applied for before the pool was constructed. Mr. Gustafson said that something that confused him was that the fence had been called a non -climbable fence that was 51. He asked the difference between that and a non -climbable fence that was. 61. Mr. Barna said there really was none. Chairperson Schnabel said they had two letters on file from the neighbors. One was from Arden Foss of 461 Rice Creek Blvd. saying they thought a higher fence would detract immeasurably in their neighborhood; and one from Mr. Gerald Maeckelbergh of 425 Rice Creek Blvd., saying that in his opinion the existing fence was adequate to prevent the intrusion of small children into their yard, and that a 6' fence would be unsightly. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission receive the letters from Mr. Arden Foss and Mr. Gerald Maeckelbergh. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Plemel commented that he didn't think a toddler could climb that fence. He said an older child might be able to, but they could get over anything. Mrs. Schnabel noted that there were other pools in the area, so the attraction wouldn't be that great. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Holden about Staff's suggestion of alternate slats being raised. Mr. Holden said that wasn't that strong of a recommendation And it would be costly to the petitioner. He said it was just mentioned as a suggestion. MOTION by Barna' seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye., the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Holden about.the statement in the Administrative Staff Report saying that "Staff's concern in this matter is that the 'intent' of the ordinance is maintained". Mr. Holden stated that Steve Olson, the Environmental Officer., was concerned that granting this variance would open the door for someone else to get it back down. Mir. Holden said he tried to assure him that each case was considered on its individual basis, and said he felt the intent was met because it was a non -climbable fence. Mr. Plemel said the intent to comply with the ordinance was there when Mr. Gustafson built the fence. 4. A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE., SECTION 205.113., 4., (A,l) TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT OF A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR USES OTHER THAN THE MAIN BUILDING TO 0 FEET FOR, A PARKING LOT., AND SECTION 205.1132 41 (C11), TO REDUCE THE REQUIREIME:NT OF 'A MINIMUM 'kLAR YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 13 FEET TO ALLOW MORE CONVENIENT PARKING FOR THE ILL AND HANDICAPPED ON PROPERTY ZONED CR -1 (GENERAL OFFICE AND LIMITED BUSINESS) LOCATED ON THE NORTH 400 FEET OF THE WEST 217.80 FEET OF OUTLOT 1., MELODY MANOR 4TH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7675 MADISON STREET N.E.., FRIDLEY., MINNESOTA. (Request by FMC & Associates --Fridley Medical Center --7675 Madison Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 5532)• MOTION by Barna., seconded by Kemper., to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.1132 49 4. minimum front yard setback of 20 feet on CR -1 zoned property. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide sufficient area for a landscape buffer between commercial structures and the public right of way. Section 205.113, 42 Cil, minimum rear yard of 25 feet on CR -1 zoned property. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space around commercial structures for aesthetic and fire fighting purposes. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Request for variance on distance from property line to parking lot. Request a setback as presently used on present site. If we are required to abide Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 12 with present codes, it would destroy the appearance of attempting to follow thru with a building design such as we have now. Also, it would eliminate many parking stalls near the building which is important for injured, ill, or handicapped patients. Request for rear yard setback is an attempt to make the existing building a functional entity. It is felt that by adding 2688 square feet to the rear of the building will enable better patient flow and result in more efficient care. It would also serve as a service area; keeping trucks, deliveries, and employee parking to the rear of the building. Again, allowing the front area for convenient'parking for our patients. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The proposed Fridley Medical Center addition is designed to come within 13 feet of the rear lot line (see attached drawing). This rear addition is intended to accommodate office space, nurses lounge, doctors lounge and records storage. This rear (east) lot line is adjacent to an existing blacktopped driveway. Present plans do not indicate if this 13 feet area would be paved or not. The variance request includes a zero setback in front to.continue parking as it now exists. Compliance with the Code would eliminate several parking stalls proposed to be adjacent to the front of the building. The ,-q-cisting zero setback for parking in the front of the building is the result of a 30 foot roadway dedication secured from the property owners in 1965. Doctor Herb Strait and Ms. Vivian Linquist, Administrator, approached the Board to present their request. Doctor Strait showed the Commissioners a survey of the existing building they have now, and said they started in a five -man building and now had 13. He showed where they wanted to put the addition, and said they were asking for a variance so they could continue the boulevard and keep the parking spaces, and also put this addition within 151 of the property line. Chairperson Schnabel asked if the proposed addition would come out about half way and split the parking lots into staff and patient, and Ms. Lindquist answered that was correct. Doctor Strait explained that in order to get the space they needed without a variance, they would have to build the addition the other way. He added that the hardship was they needed more space, and the proposed plan was the best way to give them the excessive parking spaces they needed. Mr. Kemper asked what percent:coverage there would be, and Mr. Holden replied 17% lot coverage. Mr. Kemper asked when they intended to start construction, and Doctor Strait said as soon as they could. He added that right now they were moving their OB Department to get some breathing space. He further stated that the exterior was pretty well set as far as size, etc., and they thought their plan was pretty workable. He said their would be no access or egress in the back of the building, and between the building and the driveway would be green area.