Loading...
SP 78-06r CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 262-1228 CALL TO ORDER: - Chairperson Harris called the July 261 1978, Planning Commission meeting to.order at 7:43 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Storla, Harris, Modig, Schnabel, Langenfeld Members Absent: Oquist (Modig representing), Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 122 1978 MOTION by Ms. 'Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the July 129 1978, Planning Commission meeting minutes, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. G: RE US BY RubBylf lVEbbuN: rl;lt I RIDIJ24Y UITI UU.UL, , nul:1v1v TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING, A 24 FOOT BY 24 FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AT ,524--RI-CE_CREEK TERRACE _-NE.;- --:THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROPERTY TS `L6T-7, BLOCK 3, RICE CREEK TERRACE, PLAT 4. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Robert Nelson of 524 Rice Creek Terrace NE was present at the meeting. Mr. Nelson said that the outside dimensions of his attached garage was 20 by 20 feet. He said that he needed the extra space because he owned three cars, two motorcycles, snowblower, lawnmower, and various other items. He said that everything would not fit into his present garage. He said that he would be willing to place the garage on either the rear Northeast or the Southeast corner of his lot. He said that if it was positioned on the Southeast edge of his lot the driveway would go out onto 68th Avenue rather than onto Rice Creek Terrace. Ms. Schnabel asked if Mr. Nelson planned to use either of the garages for any type of home business (ie repair work, etc). Mr. Nelson said that it would be used only for the storage of his belongings. He said the only repair work done would be what he would do on his own cars and engines such as oil changing or tune- ups. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 262 1978 —Page 2 S Mr. Nelson pointed out that Western Garage Company would be building the second accessory building. Mr. Boardman explained the setbacks that would have to be adhered to if the garage would be positioned at the Southeast Corner of Mr. Nelson's lot. Ile also explained why the garage should not be placed at the Northeast corner. He said that once the setbacks were met, there would be very little room left for a drive -way going to the rear Northeast corner. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Nelson now wanted the Planning Commission to consider the positioning of the garage at the Southeast Rear Corner of the lot with access to the garage off of 68th Avenue. Mr. Nelson said that he would position the garage at the rear Southeast Corner of his lot. Mr. Doran Edinger of 536 Rice Creek Terrace said that he was not in favor of the garage being constructed at the rear Northeast corner of the lot with the driveway off of Rice Creek Terrace. However, he said that he did not object to the location of the garage at the Southeast corner of the lot with access off of 68th Avenue. He said that he did believe that Mr. Nelson needed the additional space and he did not object to his having a second accessory building. He said that he could not anticipate any problems. Mr. Dan Gourde of 6800 -7th Street NE said that if the garage was placed at the Southeast corner of Mr. Nelson's lot, it would be adjacent to his house and garage. He pointed out that his garage was 50-60 feet from the street. He said that if the building was allowed, he would want the garage placed at the same setback as his garage so that there would be an even line of sight. He also pointed out that the curbing on that street were very new and he really hated to see it ripped up so soon. Mr. Gourde said that there was already a driveway to the North of his property line. He.said that he did not like the idea of having two driveways abutting his property. He felt that they would act as a detriment to the value of his house. Mr. Gourde said that he was opposed to having the driveway off of 68th Avenue. He felt that the neighborhood was already developed and the rear yards were presently all open. He said that there were no other buildings located in the rear yards and he didn't want to see a precedent set by allowing the construction.of the second accessory building. PLANNING COM14ISSION MEETING -4 JULY 26 9. 1278_ Page Mr. Langenfeld indicated that he was weighing both sides in trying to make a fair decision. He felt that the accessory building should be compatible with the surrounding area. He said that it was the property owners yard. He also said that if Mr. Nelson did not have an accessory building' he could very well store the items in the yard. He said that he was concerned about the aesthetic value of the area. Chairperson Harris pointed out that the burden of proof for denial was upon the city. He said that in the case of a denial the Commission would have to list the reasons, MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Storla, to recommend approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #78-06 by Robert Nelson: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051$29At to allow the construction of a second accessory building, a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage at 524 Rice Creek Terrace NE. The legal description of this property is Lot 7, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace, Plat 4, with the stipulations that the garage be located at the Southeast corner of the rear lot with access off of 68th Avenue and that all easement and setback requirements are met; and that the alignment of the second accessory building be as closely as possible with the abbutting property owners structure without causing undue hardship on the petitioner. Chairperson Harris suggested that Staff help work out the best location possible for the second accessory building. Mro Langenfbld read a portion of a memorandum from the City Attorney to the City Council regarding Special Use Permits; "If evidence is presented at the hearing that the requested use is compatible with the basic 'use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health9 safety$ or general welfare of the area effected or the community as a whole and complies with such other standards as specified' the Special Use Permit should be granted and a denial would be deemed arbitrary, unlawfuly and in violation of the applicant's constitutional rights," Mr, Gourde wanted the drivbway accessing the second accessory building to be the same as his driveway. He wanted some excavating done so that there would not be the four foot drop from his property to the proposed driveway. Ma, Schnabel felt that it would be an undue hardship to the applicant. Mrs, Marilyn Larson of 506 Rice Creek Terrace said that the additional driveway onto 68th Avenue would cause a safety hazard. She said that 68th Avenue was a well traveled street and she wanted that considered if the driveway was to be -allowed. She also pointed out that the area was developed with homes having attached garages. She said that by allowing Mr. Nelson to construct a separate building in the rear of the property may set a precedent. She said that if everyone decided to have the second accessory buildings the area would become very aesthetically unpleasing, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 26, 1978 Page 3 ti Mr. Richard Larson of 506 Rice Creek Terrace said that he was mainly concerned about the adverse effect of property values on the adjacent landowners. He said that the rear yards were relatively open and there were no other buildings located in the rear yards. He said that the construction of the garage at that location would cause the removal of a tree and he didn't believe that would be good for the aesthetics of the property. He said that even though Mr. Nelson didn't plan on any outside business being conducted$ the property could change hands and the new owner could decide differently. Mr. Larson said that any detached building was undesirable. He felt that the adverse effect of property values should be considered in the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Dowie Bouma of 525 Rice Creek Terrace said that he was also concerned about the adverse effect of property values. He said that most people had items that they can't store in their garages. He said that through -out the area there were storage warehouses that were built for the main intent of aiding property owners in being able to store items that they didn't have room to store at their residents. He suggested that Mr. Nelson store any seasonal items in one of the warehouses. Mr. Richard Fischbach of 6810 -7th Street NE said that Mr. Nelson presently had a nice rear yard. He said if he put the garage in the rear yard he would have to take out some fencing and some trees. He really didn't feel that the garage would look nice and the adjacent neighbor should not have to look at a garage. The entire openess of the area would be gone. Mr. Nelson explained' to the Commission the contour of his lot. He indicated how he planned to position the garage. He did not feel that the garage could possibly cause any undue hardship to the adjacent neighbors. He said that the top of the garage would not be much over the natural incline already present on the lot. He said that the tree that seemed to concern the neighbors was a weeping willow tree that had to be taken doom anyway . He said that whether or not the garage would be located at that location$ the tree would still be removed. Mr. Nelson explained how he came to buy: in the area. He said that he presently considered remaining in that house for a long time. He said that there were no plans in the future of a move. He said that they now had a house and an area that he and his family liked. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Storl'a# to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimoulsy. The Public Hearing was.closed at,8:19 P.M. M PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING JULY 26; 1978 Page 5 Mrs. Larson pointed out that the slope of the land in question was an important issue. She said that problems could develop if the garage was constructed without considering the lay of the land. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out to the people opposing the motion that he had weighed all the statements and concerns expressed by all the people. He said that he had to abide by the rules and even after listening to everything being.said he did not feel there would be enough information to deny the request. Mr. Storla said that Mr. Nelson had seemed very flexible with anything that was being suggested. He said that he wanted the garage and was agreeable to whatever stipulations the Commission wanted to put on the approval. Mr. Langenfeld said that the request would go before the City Council on August 7, 1978. He told the people in the audience that they should also attend that meeting. Chairperson Harris said that the action of the Planning Commission was to recommend an action to the City Council. Chairperson Harris explained that Mr. Nelson would have to abide and adhere to all the Building Codes. He said that the construction, the materials used, and the general design of the accessory building would have to conform to the existing structure and would have to be approved by the Building Department. Chairperson Harris said that he did not share the concern of the grade differential as was alluded to by some of the neighbors. He said that he did look at the property previous to the meeting and he said that . the minimum grade of the structure would have to be 18 inches to two feet. He said that with those statistics the grade differential would only be approximately 3 feet. He said that it appeared there was enough land between the structures that the accessory building could easily be handled. Chairperson Harris said that he did share the concern of the surrounding property owners that a precedent could possibly be set. He said that the Commission had to keep in mind that the Special Use Permit was granted to the property and not the person. He said that he was not certain that the structure would be in concert with the rest of the neighborhood; however, he said that with Mr. Langenfeld's reading of the directive from the City Attorney, the Planning Commission wasnIt left with much choice because there was no real proof that the construction of the second accessory building would be a health, safety, or general welfare hazard to the neighborhood, He said it would be very difficult for the Planning Commission to deny the request. PLANNING COMMISSION METING - JULY 262 19Z8, Pae 6 -. t Mr..Boardman said that home occupations are not allowed to be carried on in .accessory buildings. Ile said that if anyone did conduct a business out of an accessory building they would be in violation of the City Ordinances. Mr®'Nelson said that a complaint from any of the neighbors that they felt a business was being carried on in the accessory building would bring immediate action from the City. UPON A VOICE VOTES all voting ayes the motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of Special Use Permits SP #78-06s with stipulations was sent on to City Council. 2. aw/9100mil NA REALTY~ SPLIT OFF THE WEST I UU FEET OF THE E1 -16T eUU r*ELT AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE$ OF LOT 19 BLOCK 29 HAYES RIVER LOTS.. THIS PARCEL WILL BE ADDRESSED AS 140 CHARLES STREET NE. Mr. Boardman said that there was sewer and water in Charles Street. He said that the property in question was zoned as R-3. He said that with the split off of the property9 there would be approximately 10,500 square feet of land that could be developed with a duplex or triplex. He said that there was an existing house on Lot B. Mr. Waara said that the intent was to split off the westerly 100 feet of the existing lot. He said that the plans were to develop Parcel A with either a duplex or a triplex. He said that the triplex would only be considered if a suitable plan could be found. Mr. Boardman said that the City would require five foot easements on all sides of the lots. In additions he said that the existing utility easement along parcel B be extended to 20 feet to allow for Bikeway/Walkway easements as well as the drainage and utility easements. Chairperson Harris asked if they came up with a triplex plan that could meet all the parking and easements conditions would that be planned for the lot. Mr. Waara said that basically a duplex was being considered. He said that froman investors standpoints they would like a triplex; howevers he wasn't sure that all the requirements could be met on that particular lot. Mr. Waara said that they were requesting a lot split and that they would work out the details with the Building Department. 18 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUST 7, 1978 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was -called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: t Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Hamernik, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC HEARING MEETING, JULY 17, 1978: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes of July 17, .1978 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, al -1 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to adopt, the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS• There was no response from the audience under this item of business. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1979 BUDGET ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1978• MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the proposed 1979 budget from the City Manager. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on the budget for September 18, 1978. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 26, 1978: ROBERT NELSON, SP #78-06, 524 RICE CREEK TERRACE: Mr. Sobiech,.Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a special use permit to allow a second accessory building at 524 Rice Creek Terrace. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and recommended approval of this request with the stipulations that the garage be located at the southeast corner of the rear lot with access off of 68th Avenue and that all easement and setback requirements be met and that the alignment of the second accessory building be as close as possible with the abutting prop- erty owners structure, without causing undue hardship on the petitioner. Mr. Sobiech stated, it should be pointed out, there were numerous objections from surrounding property owners regarding this request for a second access- ory building. Mr. Nelson, the petitioner for the special -use permit, appeared before the Council and stated he recently purchased the house at 524 Rice Creek Terrace and, although it does have an attached garage, extra storage space is needed 188 REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 2 as he has three automobiles, two motorcycles, bicycles, a snowblower and lawnmower. He stated he would like to keep these items housed inside and this is not possible with his present garage. Councilman Hamernik asked Mr. Nelson if he had given consideration to ex- panding the existing garage. Mr. Nelson stated he has, but it is quite close to the lot line, and the garage was built short of the .roof line. He also stated there is a large slab in the back which they use as a patio and he felt it would be easier and more economical to put up a second structure. Mr. Richard Larson, 506 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he lived directly across the street from Mr. Nelson and felt construction of the accessory building would detract from other properties and have an effect on the' valuation and esthetics of the area. He felt a precedent would be set, if the special use permit is granted, and didn't think it was in keeping with the neigh- borhood as it presently exists. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Larson if he would feel differently if the structure .was attached to the house, possibly on the end toward 68th Avenue. Mr. Larson stated he was not sure how this would fit in with the house so it would be difficult to answer. He stated he would not be pleased with a driveway that would open toward his property. Mrs. Barbara Hughes, 548 Rice Creek Terrace, indicated she was concerned about the noise. She also stated she would like any garage opening to be on 68th Avenue and not Rice Creek Terrace. 'Mr. Sobiech stated, as far as the noise, it is his understanding that the accessory building is mostly for storage, but that Mr. Nelson may do some work on the family car in the building. He stated, if the noise got to a point where it was a public nuisance, the City would monitor the s-ttuation. 'Mrs. Hughes pointed out there are State regulations regarding noise control -and they can be enforced. Mayor Nee stated he felt the State regulations indicate the noise has to be at a certain level over a period of time and felt the noise Mrs. Hughes was referring to wasn't prohibited by the State. 'Mr. D. G. Zawislak, 497 Rice Creek Terrace, pointed out there already is A double garage on the property and was wondering why Mr. Nelson purchased the house if he needed more storage. 'Mr. Dan Gourde, 6800 7th Street, indicated his concerns are the same as Mr. Larson's. He felt by allowing this second accessory building, it would set a precedent to allow other persons in the City to request a second garage. He felt they would also be destroying property values in the neighborhood and another driveway would be added just north of his property. He felt this would be a detriment if he wanted to sell his property. Mrs. Marlene Knight, 513 Rice Creek Terrace, stated when they purchased I their house in October, their title stated there were to be no unattached -garages in the community. She stated, therefore, they purchased their home with the understanding that they couldn't put up another garage. Mr. Dowie Bouma, 525 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he has been a real estate broker for 16 years and is well aware of the effect this second accessory building would have on the neighborhood. He stated the homes in this area range from $60-$90,000 and if you start adding double garages up and down the street, it would have an adverse effect on each and every property. j He indicated he would be in favor of rejecting the request for the special REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 3 use permit. • I Mr. Nelson stated there are other detached garages on Rice Creek Terrace and he personally feels it would be better to have another garage than to have items sitting in the driveway. He stated he moved out of his home in Columbia Heights because he ran out of room and spent time looking for property where he could put up another garage. He stated he talked with the realtor and someone at City Hall and was told this was acceptable. Mr. Nelson stated one of the main reasons for purchasing this home was because he needed the extra room and felt he could add on. Mr. Nelson stated he didn't come in to the neighborhood to put a blight on anyone, but felt storing items outside are worse than having the accessory building. Mr. Nelson stated he isn't aware of any covenants in his abstract'of title which would prohibit him from building the accessory building. Mayor Nee questioned the nature of the covenants in Mrs. Knight's title. Mrs -Knight stated, when their attorney examined the title, there was a paragraph that was very specific as to what you could or could not do as far as unattached garages. Councilman Barnette asked if the residents would have the same objections, if Mr. Nelson merely built a storage building, with no driveway. Mr. Larson stated, speaking on his own behalf, it would depend on the location, size and design of the structure. He stated he would not find it as undesirable particularly if it was a smaller structure and didn't have the driveway and a large garage door. Mrs. Hughes stated she would have no objections to a storage building, as long as it faces on 68th and there is no noisy activity. She indicated, however, there are a lot of places to store off-season vehicles other than on your own property. Mr. Gourde stated he would have no objections to a storage shed. He stated this would eliminate the driveway and wouldn't be as large as the accessory building proposed by Mr. Nelson. Councilman Hamernik stated a number of the neighbors expressed a concern about the comment at the Planning Commission regarding the burden of proof for denial of the special use permit. Mr. Doug Kli•nt, acting City Attorney, stated the City doesn't have the initial burden of proof as it is on the applicant to show that his request for the special use permit complies with the requirements of the City Code. He stated the petitioner would have to show that the application would not adversely effect the safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. He stated, from this point, the burden is on the City for showing a reason for denying the special use permit. Mr. Doug Klint stated the courts have shown that mere aesthetic reasons are not sufficient for denial. Councilman Hamernik stated, at this point, the Council has testimony from a person who is a real estate broker regarding property values, although i they don't have any official testimony from an appraiser on his evaluation of the situation. He stated there were a number of comments regarding a precedent being set concerning second accessory buildings which he agrees does create some concern in his mind. He stated he didn't really feel the City was planned with this in mind, that is, putting up second accessory buildings on every lot. He felt this would be a great detraction from the area, if this took place. Councilman Hamernik felt the proper way to approach this would be for an ordinance change so that there was adequate control. Mayor Nee thought the ordinance is clear that it is prohibited. Mr. Sobiech, Publis Works Director, stated this is permitted with a special use permit, and prohibited without the special use permit. 61 190 REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 4 Councilman Hamernik stated his point in bringing this up for discussion is that the general public probably has a misinterpretation as to how the ordinance reads, as he'felt they interpret it as being acceptable, without the special use permit. Mayor stated he generally agrees with Mr. Nelson that it would be favorable to get the vehicles under cover and stored inside. He stated this is why the question was raised of extending the garage in order to obtain the needed space. Councilman Barnette asked if the City can really say, by adding this accessory building, if it would lower the value of homes around this property. Mr. Doug Klint, City Attorney, stated the Council would have to be the final judge and wdi!.gh the :evi:dence. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated they have been told aesthetics are not sufficient reason for denial, but diminuation of the value would be, yet the diminu- ation depends on the aesthetics. Councilman Hamernik stated, at this point, he is in the position to recommend denial, however, if the petitioner feels, for any reason, he would like action delayed, he would give this consideration. Mr. Nelson indicated he could see no reason for Council to delay action on the request. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to deny SP #78-06, as filed by Mr. Robert Nelson, 524 Rice Creek Terrace, on the grounds that the addition of a second auxiliary storage structure, such as proposed, would have a diminutive effect on the area which has been maintained and a precedent would not be set by den.vinq this request. Seconded by C2un�ilman n r�A++o Councilman Schneider clarified that they are not allowed to consider the aesthetics of the situation, but if the adverse effects diminish property values, then this can be considered as a reason for denial. Mr. Doug K1int, City Attorney, stated it is a very close legal question and the reason for denial would have to be determined by the Council. In this case, he stated, the fact that the Planning Committee recommended approval should be given considerable weight. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Barnette praised the Nelsons' motives, and hoped something could. be worked out so that they could get things inside a storage area. Mayor Nee stated he also shared Councilman Barnette's feelings and hoped some other alternative could be worked out. Councilman Hamernik stated he was concerned to the degree that he is wondering, in searching the ordinance, if perhaps Mr. Nelson wasn't misled. He felt the Planning Commission should review the ordinance for possible clarifica- tion. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to recommend that staff bring this ordinance I before the Planning Commission for their review and further discussion for possible rewriting for clarification. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried / unanimously. ROD WAARA, EDINA REALTY; L.S. #78-04, 140 CHARLES STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director; stated this is a request for a lot j split for a parcel of property in the southwest corner of East River Road I CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WE., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3460 August 16, 1978 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Robert Nelson 524 Rice Creek Terrace Fridley, Mn 55432 Re: Special Use Permit, SP #78-06 Dear Mr. Nelson On August 7, 1978 , the Fridley City Council officially,p=7&X1XWW7VgVk ( "denied your request for a Special Use Permit with the stipulations listed below. Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below; and return one copy to the City of Fridley. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. JLB/de Stipulations: Silly, ITY PLANNER Concur with action taken.