Loading...
VAR 09.79City of Fridley AT THE 70P OF THE TN/INS i • ___ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. �'--1 CIYY HALL FRIDLEY - 55432 612-560 3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 1" :2 APPROVED BY 800 Name6A �za� Addressone Legal Lot No. Description � Block No. Tract or ddn. Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) t X® e Date Meeting Date Fee�/ Receipt No. tur Comments &Recommendations by the Board of Appeals 61 City Council Action and Date City of Fridley sus iecr P AT THE TOP OF TH€ TWINS APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS 1 1 L, L ,7_�'—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. ' (Staff Report) r i PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 1 ! i 1 . CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 ,J NUMBER REV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVED (1Y 6`12-560-3450 910-F23 1 3/21/75 2 2 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by �°— List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 .feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified �y M/M Anton Patami, 1411 Kerry Circle N.E. M/M Robert Donalds, 1400 Kerry Circle N.E. M/M Daniel Schmacher, 1410 Kerry Circe N.E. M/M Karl Krater, 1420 Kerry Circle N.E. M/M Bruce Anderson, 1430 Kerry Circle N.E. M/M James Schaffran, 6180 Kerry Lane N.E. M/M Ronald Caldwell, 6170 Kerry Lane N.E. M/M Leslie Svendsen, 6171 Kerry Lane N.E. Mike O'Bannon, 5298 Fillmore Street N.E. 55421 M/M Robert Hal.berg, 1491 Rice Creek Drive N.E. M/M Dennis BybliuW 1470 Rice Creek Drive N.E. M/M Steven Butgusaim,6160 Kerry Lane N.E. 107 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRI®LEY, MINNESOTA 56432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 September 28, 19.79 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 Chambersat 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, Qctober 9 �.197g.' i:n : reg*rd t4 the Request for v4rtgnces pursuant to ChApter 20.5. of the ,Fri.dl ey . City, Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required :35 feet: to 25 feet on Lot 11, Block. 2, -Heather Hi'lIs Third Addition, the same betn9 149-0. Rice Creek: Ur (ve, and to reduce the front yard sethack to 30'feet, on 'Lot 2, Block. 2, Heather Hills Third Additton.i the same being 1480 Rice`Creek Drive, and reduce the front yard setback to 25feet on Lpt 5, B1ock.2, Heather Hills Third Addition, the same being 6150 Kerry Lane NE. 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 SCHNABLL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS CQMMIS,,5-I9N Note; TFie 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. I tern 42, - ADMINISTRATIVE 2- ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on public right of way. Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in line with other homes and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: These three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul -.de --.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding these three, have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of Lot 1 there is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The useable back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the back of the land is quite steep. Item -12 - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E.- 1486 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on publid right of way. "Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in line with other hones and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: . These three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul -.de -.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding these three, have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of Lot 1 there is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The useable back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the back of the land is quite steep. H11MON 9909 roP ZI$ Fin aC i N O o Op �,QD ,�I °off `°„� a � .` I H �, H1HOA( a I o Zi o/ - 09 ooeoz = g oc, zsso�=,� rr« �F .... :::....91 r 7 ,6z o. v { Z-91 p��= p• IT, SNV7 p8'%1 `..•. Zoo, 6e eir, v 06"/L = 7 ?6699=yVC IV 7�,�, 10 `o Z CIA qI ,` � I � •••.•• .. � SII N•` • .y. •'i `I oovz Am tt PO,/Oo0 s(, ?d '0IV 1101 1ipgnS s.io/ipnd `Fe /07 it • `•. jSqMqq1 jo aui/ /soa ay1 Surveyors Certificate COMSTOCK & DAVIS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 1446 County Road J, Mpls., Minn. 55432, 784-9346 Lot 1, Block 2., Mr. Mike O'Bannon Heather Hills Third Addition 5209 Fillmore Street N.E. Fridley, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 uflder9ro emen� h � I 0 1 d-alm7ye ea -semen LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. SCALE: /' = SO o denoles It -04 inonamenl I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. la,932 1z/i%6 .3613 Reg. No. Date Job No. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9,, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the October 9, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission to -order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Plemel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Building Inspector APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded.by Mr. Barna that the Appeals Commission.minutes.of . September 18, 1979, be approved with the following corrections: Ms. Schnabel noted on page 10, the 6th paragraph from the botton, the word "with" should be added to the sentence, "Ms. Schnabel said with the exception ." On page 11, the 5th paragraph from the top, the word precedent was spelled wrong. On the same page, between the 10th and 11th paragraph, Ms. Schnabel asked to have the following explanation inserted. "Mr. Moravetz stated that the Councilmember for this ward had requested through the City Manager's office that this item come before the City Council." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner for item one on the agenda if he would mind being placed second on the agenda. She explained, Mr. O'Bannon, the second petitioner, had an 8:00 meeting at the County. Mr. Holsten, representing item one, agreed to the change. 1. REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO RE- DUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET, TO 25 FEET ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HEAT -HER HILLS THIRD _ADDITION, �THE SAM1E BEING 1490 RICE CREEK DRIVE N.E.. AND TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 30 FEET ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2 HEATHER HILLS THIRD ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1480 RICE CREEK DRIVE N.E , AND REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HEATHER HILLS THIRD ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6150 KERRY LANE_N,E. , Request by Mike O'Bannon, 5298 Fillmore Street, Fridley, MN 55421). MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCILNABEL DECLAR,;D THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE 2' Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. .6150 Kerry Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: -erection 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking -without encroaching on public right of way. *Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment :into a neighbor's front yard. .B. STATED HARDSIIIP: "To be in line with other homes and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: These three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul -.dee -.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding these three, ,.have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of lot 1 thence is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in -setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. 'he useable back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances ;as the back of the land is quite steep. lis. Schnabel asked Darrel Clark if he had any further comments to make on this item. Mr. Clark .said no, he felt the attached map should answer any questions. Fis. Schnabel said with all the various numbers and writings on the map, it gets a little confusing, and asked Mr. Clark to go over the area. Mr. Clark said the existing home on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, the proposed home on Lot 5 would be back 25 feet. The home, under construction, on Lot 4., was setback 50 feet. Lot 3 had a previous variance granted for a 26.5 foot setback. The proposed home on Lot 2 would have a 30 foot setback and a 25 feet setback on Lot 1. He pointed out the house left of Lot 1 and not on the diagram was setback 38 feet. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr. O'Bannon, for comments. He said the drawing sets up what he proposes. Ile has set each house step by step around the,cul-de-sac. He said Lot 5 will have a small backyard because of a steep APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE 3 drop-off on the lot. Both Lots 1 and .2 have backyards that go into a cliff. Ms. Schnabel said she was not aware of the drop-off.on Lot 5. Mr. Kemper asked where the house to the east of Lot 1 was placed in comparision with the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. O'Bannon said the garage of the house east of Lot 1 would line up with the outer- most front edge of the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. Clark scaled the home home location for the Commission. Mr. Kemper said Mr. d''Bannon does have a hardship. There was a drop-off on Lot 5 and both Lots 1 and 2 have a cliff in the backyard. The house on Lot 3 had a similar request about a year ago. He felt Mr. O'Bannon had been able to compromise lining up the homes on the cul-de-sac and has done a good job of making them look nice, He. Schnabel said she was concerned about the setback on Lot 5, The garage on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, with the house back even further. She thought the setback on Lot 5 could be more then 25,feet. There are no windows on the home -on Lot 6 on this side, but there was a deck, so the placement should not bother them. On Lot 4, there was a window in the front portion, but even that should not create a visual problem. Mr. Kemper asked how much room was in the backyard if the proposed home was setback at 25 feet. Mr. O'Bannon said there would be a 25 foot backyard. Ms. Gabel asked if the drop-off would.beterraced. Mr. O'Bannon said they are planning on leaving -it in its natural state. Mr. Kemper suggested discussing each lot separatly. Mr. O'Bannon explained he sighted the house -on Lot 1 with the one to the east, that was how he came up with the 25 foot setback. Mr. Kemper said the line of sight looked okay between the 3 houses on Lots 1 and 2 and the one to the east. He felt there were no visual problems and had no objections to the setbacks for Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Schnabel said she understood the backyard problems on Lot 5, but did not like the idea of having this house so much closer to the street then the neighboring homes. Mr. O'Bannon. said the house on Lot 4 was not setback 50 feet, it was closer to 45 feet. He also said when placing a home on a lot in this type of a situation, he tries to place it in the middle of the neighboring homes. You would not want Lot 5 to be Lot 6's backyard. Ms. Schnabel said that was true, but there were no windows on this side of Lot 6. Mr. O'Bannon said there was..a deck located there.. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE -4. . Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any comments from staff regarding the setback. She understood, when talking to the Planning Department, there had been a comment made. She was refering to the staff review sheet. Mr. Clark said the only comment was by Jerry Boardman. He said he did not see any real hardship, but the hillside does cut down the amount of rear yard. "Ms. Schnabel questioned the size of the boulevards. Mr. O'Bannon replied they are 10 feet on the straight street, and 7 feet on the cul- de-sac street. Mr. Kemper asked if it would be possible to angle the home on the lot, or would that --create a problem with the side yards. Mr. O'Bannon replied angling the home would create other problems. He stated as the house is proposed, there are no problems with the side yards. He stated a L-shaped rambler would not work because the back of the house would be on the edge of the Zrop-off. . Mr. Barna asked how much the drop-off was. Mr. O'Bannon stated 15-20 feet. You cannot climb the hill easily. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Sarna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCMiABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Kemper said he sees no real problem with the requests, but aclatowledges that the Chairperson was concerned about the setback on Lot 5. Ms. Schnabel said her main concern was Lot 5. She felt Lots 1 and 2 would fit in, and there was definitely a backyard problem with the hill,. Lot 3 was previously granted a similar variance request and fits into the neighborhood nicely,, so these should also. She had objected to Lot 5's variance request because first of all, she was not aware` of the drop-off in the backyard and secondly, was led to believe there was an objec- tion by staff on this request. She said when reading the staff review report tonight, she does riot detect that and has no problem with it now. Mr. Clark asked Mr. O'Bannon when he would be building. Mr. O'Bannon stated he would like to dig Lot 5 this fall, but was, not sure. He felt one of the lots would be started this fall. Ms. Gabel said she would be concerned about the setback on Lot 5 if the street was straight. Secondly, she felt, many variances have had to be granted in this area be- cause of topographical reasons and these requests were consistent with those.. She also felt the area looked very nice. Mr. Kemper and Mr. Plemel both agreed that Mr. O'Bannon had done a good job in the area. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to approve the request for variances pur- suant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from "irEALS COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 9. 1.979 PAGE 5 the required 35 feet, to 25 feet on Lot 1, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and to reduce the front yard setback to 30 feet on Lot 2, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and reduce the front yard setback to 25 feet on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairwoman Schnabel informed Mr. O'Bannon he could apply for his permits immediately since this commission had final action on his requests. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY, TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOT SIZE FROM THE REQUIRED 9.000 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 7.520 SQUARE FEET3 TO ALLOW A LOT SPLIT REgUEST TO SPLIT OFF LOT 1 BLOCK 3, SHAFFER'S SUBDIVISION #1. LYING EAST OF THE EAST'.90 FEET.THEREOF, TO MAKE TWO BUILDING SITES ON PARTS OF LOTS 1 AND LOT 2. BLOCK 3, SHAFFER'S SUB- DIVISION #1. THE SAME BEING 7562 AND 7584 ABLE STREET N.E. (Request by Exemplar, Inc., 3213 Townview Avenue N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55418). MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:00 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7562 Able Street N.E. 7584 Able Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.153, 1, lot area required of not less than 9,000 square feet for a residential lot. .B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Lot split into Lot 1 and Lot 2 approved. Requires variance .to area requirement. Lot is low (2-3 feet below street grade) and has several feet of peat on top of bearing soil. Established area of smaller homes is not conducive to expensive home on one lot. Property owners within required distance notified of lot split but did not attend Planning Commission meeting." _ :d C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIBI: The lot split request approval was recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1979'that would establish these building, sites. This land is on the corner. of 76th Avenue and Able Street and both building sites would face onto Able Street. The lots would be - 94.20 and 93.88 feet deep with 80 foot frontages and the proposed buildings would meet all of the Code requirements for setbacks. The majority of the lots in,this area are considerably larger than these would be if the lot split is approved. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9. 1979 _ PAGE 6 Mr. Barna pointed out the Block number should be 3 and not 2. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark for comments. Mr. Clark said his main concern was that all lots in Shaffer's Addition were the same size prior to this lot being split. But since there were no objections from neighbors, -.about 2 houses on 1 lot, perhaps that was not a real concern. Ms. Gabel said she understood the neighbors had objected to the previous proposal of a double bungalow. Mr. Clark stated that was true. Ms. Schnabel said she understood public notices were sent out to the neighbors for the lot split that has already been heard before the Planning Commission. Notices are not normally sent out for lot splits. Nr. Clark said the reason was because the lots would be smaller then the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel pointed out the neighbors were properly notified for both the Planning Commission and Appeals Commission meetings and there were no objections. 15r. P1 asked if these were factory built homes. Mr. Ted Holsten, 3213 Townview Ave. N.E., Mpls., said no. He pointed out the lot widths are 80 feet, but they would not be as deep as usual. Ms. Schnabel asked if the homes would be built at the same time. Mr. Holsten replied the builder, Allan Homes, have one possibly sold at the present time. That one would probably be built first and then the second one would be built. Ms. Schnabel asked what the homes would look like. Hr. Holsten presented a plan of the homes. They are 23 feet X 42 feet, 3 bedrooms, with a detached double garage. The price, with the garage, should be around $55,000. He pointed out the area hoes are older, the same size or smaller and there are double bungalows across the street. A single. home ©n the one lot would be too expen- sive for the area. Ms. Schnabel asked if the soil would be a problem.. Mr. Holsten said he had not had soil tests taken, but from what he observed by digging down 2 to 3 feet, there should be good firm soil.. Some of the trees on the lot will have to be removed to get down to that soil. Chairwoman Schnabel asked for further discussion from; the commission. Bir. Kemper said this community needs mare ianexpmsive housing and these sbould help. He said the petitioner was correct, there eras a Catch-22 system here. You build one house on the large lot, you take the home out of the inexpensive range and an expensive h ie takes it out of the neighborhood. I tem J2. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORTS 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane td. E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet: Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on publid right of way. -Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in line with other homes and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: e These three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul -.de --.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding these three, have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of Lot 1 there is a 38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The useable back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the back of the land is quite steep. 3 =E,M 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 56432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 September 28, 1979:. = Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University ,Y Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 9g.1W9.A.in:reg4rd to the. following: Request for variances pursuant to Chapter'205 of the Fridley City Code, to -reduce the front `yard setback from the required -35 feet, tp 25 feet on Lot 11, Block 2, -Heather Hills Tht. d Addition, the same being 149.0' Rice Cre.ekA)y,(ve; and to reduce the front yard setback'to 30 feet,;, on Lot 2, Block 2, Heather Hills Th -i rd Addi tion_.i. the same being 1480 Rice Creek Drive, and -reduce the front yard setback to 25.feet on Lot 5, B1ock.2, Heather Hills Third Addition, the some boinq 6150 Kerry Lane.N.E, 4. Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. .VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPE:AL$: CQhIMI.IQN Note; The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request. unlesa 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. 6 -CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the October 9, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Plemel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Building Inspector APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna that the Appeals Commission minutes.of , September 18, 1979, be approved with the following corrections: Ms. Schnabel noted on page 10, the 6th.paragraph from the.botton, the word "with" should be added to the sentence, "Nis. Schnabel said with the exception ." On page 11, the 5th paragraph from the top, the word precedent was spelled wrong. On the same page, between the 10th and 11th paragraph, Ms. Schnabel asked to have the following explanation inserted. "Mr. Moravetz stated that. the Councilmember for this ward had requested through the City Manager's office that this item come before the City Council." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner for item one on the agenda if he would wind being placed second on the agenda. She explained, Mr. O'Bannon, the second petitioner, had an 8:00 meeting at the County. Mr. Holsten, representing item one, agreed to the change. 1. RE UESTS FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY -CODE, TO RE- DUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REOUIRED 35 FEET. TO 25 FEET ON LOT 1, BLOCK THIRD ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1480 RICE CREEK DRIVE. N.E., AND REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2. NEATHE1 HILLS THIRD ADDITTON, .2I. SAME BEING 6150 KERRY LANE N,E.; (Request by Mike O'Bannon., 5298 Fillmore Street, N.E_L, Fridley, MN 55421). MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCIIINABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER_ . 1979 PAGE 2� Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MPORT3 1490 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane II.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking without encroaching on publid right of way. -Also for the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard.. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "To be in line with other homes and to allow room for back yards." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: These three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul -.de -.sac joining Kerry Lane and Rice Creek Drive. The other lots, surrounding these three, have varying setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40,33 verified setback; and on the east side of Lot 1 there is a.38.4 setback. The visibility of the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-de-sac and curve of the streets. The use -able back yard area would be increased with approval of the variances as the back of the land is quite steep. Ms. Schnabel asked Darrel Clark if he had any further comments to make on this item. Mr. Clark said no, he felt the attached map should answer any questions. Ms. Schnabel said with all the various numbers and writings on the map, it gets a lithe confusing, and asked Mr. Clark to go over the area. Mr. Clark said the existing home on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, the proposed home on Lot 5 would be back 25 feet. The home, under construction, on Lot 4, was setback 50 feet. Lot 3 had a previous variance granted for a 26.5 foot setback. The prnposed home on Lot 2 would have a 30 foot setback and a 25 feet setback on Lot 1. He pointed out the house left of Lot 1 and not on the diagram was setback 38 feet. Ms. Schnabel tasked the petitioner, Mr. O'Bannon, for continents. He said the drawing sets up what he proposes. He has set each house step by step around the cul-de-sac. He said Lot 5 will have a small backyard because of a steep 1 t w PAGE drop-off on the Ic t. Both Lots 1 and 2 have backyards that go into a cliff. Ms. Schnabel said she was not aware of.the drop-off on Lot 5. Mr. Kemper asked there the house to the east of Lot 1 was placed in comparision with the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. O'Bannon said the garage of the house east of Lot 1 would line up with the outer- most front edge o the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. Clark scaled :he home home location for the Commission. Mr. Kemper said Mi. d'Bannon does have a hardship. There was a drop-off on Lot 5 and both Lots 1 a d 2 have a cliff in the backyard. The house on Lot 3 had a similar request about a year ago. He felt Mr. O'Bannon had.been able to compromise lining up the homes on tie cul-de-sac and has done a good job of making them look nice. Ms. Schnabel said she was concerned about the setback on Lot 5, The garage on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, with the house back even further. She thought the setback on Lot 5 could be mo a then 25 feet. There are no windows on the home on Lot 6 on this side, but there Was a deck, so the placement should not bother them. On Lot 4, there was a window in tlie front portion, but even that should nQt create a visual problem. Mr. Kemper asked low much room was in the backyard if the,proposed home was setback at 25 feet. Mr. O'Bannon said there would be a 25.foot backyard. Ms. Gabel asked 4 the drop-off would:be terraced. Mr. O'Bannon said they are planning on leaving it in its natural state. Mr. Kemper suggested discussing each lot separatly. Mr. O'Barnon-expl ined he sighted the house on Lot 1 with the one to the -east, that was how he came u with the 25 foot setback. Mr. Kemper said toe line of sight looked okay between the 3 houses on Lots 1 and 2 and the one to the ea t. He felt there were no visual problems and had no objections to the setbacksfor ots 1 and 2. Ms.:Schnabel.s.aid'she understood.the backyard problems on Lot 5, but did not like the idea of.hlving this house so much closer to the street then the neighboring homes. Mr. O'Bannon said the house on Lot 4 was not setback 50 feet, it was closer to 45 feet. He also said when placing a home on a lot in this type of a situation, he tried to place it in the middle of the neighboring homes. You would not want Lot 5 to be Lot 6's backyard. Ms. Schnabel said that was true, but there were no windows on this side of Lot 6. Mr. O'Bannon said there was a deck located there. 1 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9,_ 1979 _ PAGE 4 - Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any comments from staff regarding the setback. She understood, when talking to the Planning Department, there had been a comment made. She was refering to the staff review sheet. Mr. Clark said the only comment was by Jerry Boardman. He said he did not see any real hardship, but the hillside does cut down the amount of rear yard. Ms. Schnabel questioned the size of the boulevards. Mr. O'Bannon replied they are 10 feet on the straight street,'and 7 feet on the cul-' de -sac street. Mr. Kemper asked if it would be possible to angle the home on the lot, or would that create a problem with the side yards. Mr. O'Bannon replied angling the home would create other problems. He stated as the house is proposed, there are no problems with the side yards. He stated a L-shaped rambler would not work because the back of the house would be on the edge of the drop-off. Mr. Barna asked how much the drop-off was. Mr. O'Bannon stated 15-20 feet. You. cannot climb the hill easily. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED =1XIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Kemper said he sees no real problem with the requests, but acknowledges that the Chairperson was concerned about the setback on Lot 5. Ms. Schriabel said her main concern was Lot 5. She felt Lots 1 and 2 would fit in, and there was definitely a backyard problem w3th`the hila. Lot 3 was previously granted a similar variance request and fits into the neighborhood nicely, so these should also. She had objected to Lot 5's variance request because first of all, she was not aware of the drop --off in the backyard and secondly, was led to believe there way an objec- tion by staff on this request. She said when reading the staff review report tonight, she does not detect that and has no problem with it now. Mr. Clark asked Mr. O'Bannon when he would be building. Mr. O'Bannon stated he would like to dig Lot 5 this fall, but was not sure. .He felt one of the lots would be started this fall. Ms. Gabel said she would be concerned about the setback on Lot 5 if the street was straight. Secondly, she felt, many variances have had to be granted in this area be- cause of topographical reasons and these requests were consistent with those,. She also felt the area looked very nice. Mr. -Kemper and Mr. Plemel both agreed that Mr. O'Bannon had done a good job in the area. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to approve the request for variances pur- suant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 _ _ _ PAG_E5 the required 35 feet, to 25 feet on Lot 1, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and to reduce the front yard setback to 30 feet on Lot 2,.Block.2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and reduce the front yard setback to 25 feet on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairwoman Schnabel informed Mr. O'Bannon he could apply for his permits immediately since this commission had final action on his requests. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PURSUANT _TO_CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY, TO REDUCE THE SQUAME FOOTAGE MUIREMENT FOR LOT SIZE FROM THE REQUIRED 9,000 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 7,520 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW A LOT SPLIT MUEST TO SPLIT OFF LOT 1 BLOCK 3, SHAFFER'S SUBDIVISION #1, LYING EAST OF THE EAST. 90 FEET THEREOF, TO MAKE TWO BUILDING SITES ON PARTS OF LOTS 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 3. SHAFFER'S SUB- DIVISION #1, THE SAME BEING 7562 AND 7584 ABLE STREET N.E. (Request by Exemplar, Inc., 3213 Townview Avenue N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55418). MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:00 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTPIITIVE STAFF REPORT 7562 Able Street N.E. 7584 Able Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 1, lot area required of not less than 9,000 square feet for a residential lot. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Lot split into Lot 1 and Lot 2 approved. Requires variance to area requirement. Lot is low (2-3 feet below street grade) and has several feet of peat on top of bearing soil. Established area of smaller homes is not conducive to expensive home on one lot. Property owners within required distance notified of lot split but did not attend Planning Commission meeting." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIZI: The lot split request approval was recommended to the City Council by the Plannibig Commission on September 26, 1979 that would establish these building sites. This land is on the corner of 76th Avenue and Able Street and both building sites would face onto Able Street. The.lots would be 94.20 and 93.88 feet deep with 80 foot frontages and the proposed buildings` would meet all of the Code requirements for setbacks. The majority of the lots in this area are considerably larger than those would be if the lot Split is approved, APPEALS COMMISSION MEE1ING OCTOBER 9 1979 PRUE 6 ' .Mr. Barna pointed out the Block number should be 3 and not 2. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark for comments. Mr. Clark said his main concern was that all lots in Shaffer's Addition were the same size prior to this lot being split. But since there were no objections from neighbors, about 2 houses on 1 lot, perhaps that was not a real concern. Ms. Gabel said she understood the neighbors had objected to the previous proposal of a double bungalow. Mr. Clark stated that was true. Ms. Schnabel said she understood public notices were sent out to the neighbors for the lot split that has already been heard before the Planning Commission. Notices are not normally sent out for lot splits. Ifr. Clark said the reason was because the lots would be smaller then the rest of the neighborhood. PIs. Schnabel pointed out the neighbors were properly notified for both the Planning Comr,issivn and Appeals Commission meetings and there were no objections. Mr. Plemel asked if these were factory built homes. Mr. Ted Holsten, 3213 Townview Ave. N.E., Mpls., said no. He pointed out the iot widths are 80 feet, but they would not be as deep as usual. Ms. Schnabel asked if the homes would be built at the same time. Mr. Holsten replied the builder, Allan Homes, have one possibly sold at the present time. That one would probably be built first and then the second one would be built. 14s. Schnabel asked what the homes would look like. Mr. Holsten presented a plan of the homes.. They are 23 feet R 42 feet, 3 bedroorns, with a detached double garage. The price, with the garage, should be around $55,,000. He pointed out the area homes are older,'th,e same size or smaller and there are double bungalows across the street. A single home on the one lot would be too expen- sive for the area. Ms. Schnabel asked if the.soil would be a problem. Mr. Holsten said he had not had soil tests taken, but from what he observed by digging down 2 to 3 feet, there should be good .firm soil. Some of the trees on the lot will have to be removed to get down to that soil. Chaircaoman Schnabel asked for further discussion from the commission. Mr. Kemper said this community needs more inexpensive housing and these should Yelp. He said the petitioner was correct, there was a Catch-22 system here. You build one house on',the large lot, you take the home out of the inexpensive range and an expensive home takes it out of the neighborhood. The east line of the west 200 feet of "' '•'L Lot 23, Auditors Subdivision No. 22 : 357.56 S 0*0/`04 W -• s :4/.57'. '. i — --/53.00. ` c ctii, o --� 6 i•I 01 r� V �141 w w' O p�� Aa s �36.. I d_ 64'33' [ =,i9 R=65992 L 7190 NJ 4 ®e0R 6,5992 84 i ANZ d =0 ',2,9' 4 `1/ 32 5iR=7090 jL = g •• :t .., .92 208.00 50,d3.�/0 NORTH i14 V, (. Pi o ; o°I o w o a w sol $NLg 01 /51.64 , j 2/0.57 A WORTH !. !0 bb -------------- 4�c?5 NQR7N