The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 87-11o ow COMM' SSION APPLICATION REVIEW j Department Number File Date Meeting Date cayoF Planning 22 3/27/87 4/14/87 f IV VLGI .File Address/Description VAR #87-11 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST 7130 Riverwood Drive McMullen/Moselle reduce side yard setback firm 25' to 17.5' RETURN TO PLANNING �DARYL COMMENTS DEBBIE Im EBBi E— JIM DEBBIE OJOHN"/ —DEBBIE ARREL -D E -B B If-- - LYDE DEBBIE RIMARK DEBBIE — EON-� DEBBIE �� Al ..CITY OF FRIDLEY" }: 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 65432 . r (612) 571-3450 PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS VARIANCE REOUEST FORM VARIANCE # '711 VARIANCE FEE RECEIPT # SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE & e LEGAL DESCrR7IPTION: LOT / BLOCK TRACTIADDITION PRESENT ZONING___ -- VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property ow ldi , ,/ here ap ic/able.�� /j *AC P @t? r�r,v f?yi ® .l/PPP I �1" �f'sl✓ewgv r5 rni�a2 Sovi`� sIa�P >-P �["q /.nrixe / C f �lde 17 /ivnPe/s1 lO�� ®o®I� a®n G! Y7,7JSV Od�'Tt[�r► Section of the Code: List specific hardship(s) Which require the variance(s): 17' , .5/, eel. FEE OWNER INFORMATIONf� NAME (please print) O r-17,v%1�/�Vsel agi1eei- I PHONE .32t- ADDRESS SIGNATUF Note to PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME (please print) PHONE ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: FOE CITY UL ONLY Notification of petitioner and property owners within 200 feet: 'Name/Address . Date notified I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I - a _ - I I I I I I I I { I i I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I McMullen/Moselle Associates, Inc. 430 Industrial Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 612-378-3981 April 3, 1987 City of Fridley 6431 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN. 55432 Re: Variance Kupp residence 7130 Riverwood Dr. Lot 7 - Bl 2 Fridley, MN. 55432 The request for this variance is based upon these facts. In regard to the sideyard setbacks: If the house was built with the garage to the west, the house would end up approx. 17 ft. from the street curb. There would be no sound buffer, which would be provided if the garage were located to the east. If we front loaded the garage in the present position, it will create a potential traffic hazard because the driveway will come out in the radius of the corner and create blind spots for all traffic. The distance to the street curb from the garage door will be 26 ft. when the garage is side loaded on the east side. Thank you for reviewing our request. Sincerely, Happy Moselle HM:bl UiYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 NOTICE OF RJBLIC 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, April 14, 1987, in regard to the following matter: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #87-11, by "ullen/Moselle, Contractors, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.31, D, 2c, 3, of the Fridley City Code, to decrease the required side yard setback of an attached accessory building which opens on a street side of a corner lot from 25 feet to 17.5 feet to allow the construction of a house and attached garage, on Lot 7, Block 2, Riverwood Park Addition, the same being 7130 Riverwood 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 BEZZOLD CHAIRMAN APPEALS COMMISSION 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 recammendation from the Appeals Commission. VAR #87-11 7130 Riverwood Drive Kenneth Wollan 7108 Riverwood Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Gary Larson 7121 Riverwood Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Piorier 7126 Riverwood Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fredrick Severni 7145 Riverwood Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Gary D. and Thomas Obrycki 105 - 71 1/2 Way Fridley, MN 55432 Gary Schantzen 115 - 71-1/2 Way Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Sebastian 151 - 71 Way Fridley, MN 55432 Appeals 3/31/87 Independent School District 14 121 - 71 Way Fridley, Ally 55432 Prapas Janej aroenthum 141 - 71 Way Fridley, MN 55432 Wille -mina Schrader 110 Alden U .-rcle Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Kinsom 125 Alden Circle Fridley, MN 55432 McMullen/Moselle Contractors 430 Industrial Blvd. Mpls., M. 55413 Item #4; April 140, 1987 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT VAICLIBODDI, • VAR #87-11 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REDU]REMSNT: Section 205.07.3, D, 2c, 3, requires that any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street shall be at least 25 feet frau the property line of a side street. Public purpose served by this requiranent is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right-of-way and also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "If the house were to be built with the garage to the west, the house would end up approximately 17 feet from the street curb. There would be no sound buffer, which would be provided if the garage were located to the east. If we front load the garage in the present position, it will create a potential traffic hazard because the driveway will come out in the radius of the corner and create blind spots for all traffic." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The construction on this house and garage was just recently started. The buyer would prefer to have his driveway go out the east side of the garage, which is 17.5 feet frau the property line. They would meet the side yard setback if the door existed f rom the south side. If the Appeals Commission approves this request staff has no stipulations to suggest. f • 3g � � req, < . ° LRi � c ►. o y r�� i n �s " � � �� ` - �\ fes► �` 1 fl f I jj .00• li'�. M i �J 12, 3 w� Cb _ �vd ' � tea. • e h _ � of �r J 8k I Rif I ►" .3 L .. • a p a i� W'ftv I Jorscr '`► L� } � ' v dd 000..,band � I ' `Do❑ C VAR #87-11 Hupp CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MccNMuwEw- Ko -as.%. -t -ca- KURTH SURVEYING INC. IHERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREo 4002 JEFFERSON STREET N.E. 9Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISmit-Ako THAT I A DULY COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA 5"21GiBTBREO LANG 8 QR UNO R EtA1M ENTKNWE OF MINNESOTA. 612-766-9769pATE � 8-1 eML1sED rum Top culla o SCALE 1"-_ N, E • CcSR�•lER OP Sv8 J E <."C LST MINNESOTA RE018 ON NO. \: fo I t.) ► 10 If C-10. a' . T, *q, A Ij Lb: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 5. CONS A VARIANCE REOUEST. VAR #87-11. BY McMUL PAGE 13 ITY ORY 17.5 7, N.E., MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE, SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK, TO OPEN TH PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARN DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:39 P.M. Vice -Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Rep rt: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7130 Riverwood Park VAR #87-11 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3, D, 2c, 3, requires that any attach d or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street sh 11 be at least 25 feet from the property line of a side street. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allo for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right-of-way and also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to redu a the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's fr nt yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "If the house were to be built with the garage to the west, the house would end up approximately 17 feet with the street curb. There would be no sound buffer, which would be provided if the garage were located to the east. If we front load the garage in the present position it will create a potential traffic hazard because the driveway will ome out in the radius of the corner and create blind spots for all traffic." C. ADPIINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The construction on this house and garage was just ecently started. The buyer would prefer to have his driveway go out he east side of the garage which is 17.5 feet from the property lin . They would meet the side yard setback if the door a ited from the south side. If the Appeals Comnission approves this request, Staff has no stipulations to suggest. v � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 14 Mr. Clark stated the building permit for this house was issued with the stipulation that the garage door W6 uX have to be moved to the south side of the structure if the variance was denied. He stated that if the garage door was on the south side, it would put the driveway exiting almost at the curve of Riverwood Drive which was not the best location as far as traffic was -concerned. The right-of-way to Riverwood Drive- was 60 ft. which was 10 ft. wider than normal to a residential street, so there was an additional 5 ft. of boulevard. If the driveway was on the east side, the distance from to the garage, there would be about 31 ft. which would leave enough room to park vehicles without hanging over onto the curb. Mr. Clark stated this house does meet code if the driveway goes out on the south side of the garage. This was a single street with a curve, not two streets coming together at an intersection. Mr. Clark stated all this has been discussed with the petitioner at some length prior to construction, but the petitioner still felt he would like to apply for the variance. the curb Mr. Moselle stated he was the builder of the house. He stated he had had the house designed, and the buyer's choice was to have the driveway on the east side for a couple of reasons: (1) an entryway was designed to come into the house from the garage. With the garage door facing east, it would give them more depth and more room for the entrance into the house; (2) the radius problem of coming onto the street on the south side was definitely a consideration. Mr. Moselle stated this house plan came in on.a-real short notice to Mr. Clark. Because the buyer wanted to get going right away, the building permit was issued with the stipulation about the variance. The drafting people, when they set up the plan, probably did not do as much investigating as they should have, because as normal setbacks are stated, this was out of the ordinary as far as the side yard setback requirements. When he had checked back with the surveyor about why this setback wasn't brought to his attention, he was* told that it was an uncommon ordinance, and the surveyoh had 'not even been aware of it. That was why they were at this paint, and why the house was designed this way from the beginning. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Moselle to describe his hardship a little bit better. Mr. Moselle stated the way the house was designed, by having the garage door on the east, it would eliminate the driveway coming out in a radius. Obviously, the buyer does not want to come out on the south side. He felt that was the major hardship. Having the garage door on the south would detract.from the looks of the house and the design of the house, not only on the exterior, but also in the interior. He agreed that maybe some time should have been spent before the house was designed this way, but he wanted to .emphasize that it was a setback not well known to the point where the house was designed before they were aware of it. It was designed in accordance with normal setbacks. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 14 Mr. Clark stated the building permit for this house was issued with the stipulation that the garage door W6 uX have to be moved to the south side of the structure if the variance was denied. He stated that if the garage door was on the south side, it would put the driveway exiting almost at the curve of Riverwood Drive which was not the best location as far as traffic was -concerned. The right-of-way to Riverwood Drive- was 60 ft. which was 10 ft. wider than normal to a residential street, so there was an additional 5 ft. of boulevard. If the driveway was on the east side, the distance from to the garage, there would be about 31 ft. which would leave enough room to park vehicles without hanging over onto the curb. Mr. Clark stated this house does meet code if the driveway goes out on the south side of the garage. This was a single street with a curve, not two streets coming together at an intersection. Mr. Clark stated all this has been discussed with the petitioner at some length prior to construction, but the petitioner still felt he would like to apply for the variance. the curb Mr. Moselle stated he was the builder of the house. He stated he had had the house designed, and the buyer's choice was to have the driveway on the east side for a couple of reasons: (1) an entryway was designed to come into the house from the garage. With the garage door facing east, it would give them more depth and more room for the entrance into the house; (2) the radius problem of coming onto the street on the south side was definitely a consideration. Mr. Moselle stated this house plan came in on.a-real short notice to Mr. Clark. Because the buyer wanted to get going right away, the building permit was issued with the stipulation about the variance. The drafting people, when they set up the plan, probably did not do as much investigating as they should have, because as normal setbacks are stated, this was out of the ordinary as far as the side yard setback requirements. When he had checked back with the surveyor about why this setback wasn't brought to his attention, he was* told that it was an uncommon ordinance, and the surveyoh had 'not even been aware of it. That was why they were at this paint, and why the house was designed this way from the beginning. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Moselle to describe his hardship a little bit better. Mr. Moselle stated the way the house was designed, by having the garage door on the east, it would eliminate the driveway coming out in a radius. Obviously, the buyer does not want to come out on the south side. He felt that was the major hardship. Having the garage door on the south would detract.from the looks of the house and the design of the house, not only on the exterior, but also in the interior. He agreed that maybe some time should have been spent before the house was designed this way, but he wanted to .emphasize that it was a setback not well known to the point where the house was designed before they were aware of it. It was designed in accordance with normal setbacks. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 15 Mr. Barna stated there really did not seem to be a hardship. Mr. Clark stated the lot was sold with Mr. Moselle was aware of the code. He too -late to change the plans much. It his own hardship. this house at this location before was aware of how the code read almost was a gamble he took, and he created Mr. Clark stated he had talked to Mr. Moselle at length several times and tried to convince him to "flip-flop" the house plan, but apparently the potential buyer did not want to do that. Mr. Moselle has spent a lot of time working on this house design, didn't realize the code restrictions, and now has gone this far with a completion date that was rather tight. He could not wait to begin construction for two weeks, because he then would go beyond the completion date. Mr. Clark stated that was his understanding of the situation. It was really not a hardship the Appeals Commission could consider, but Mr. Moselle would definitely have had a hardship if he had waited until this meeting for the decision, then having to go back to the drafting board to redraft the house design. However, if this variance was denied, Mr. Moselle could switch the garage door to the south. Mr. Barna stated he still did not feel there was a well-defined hardship, other than the fact that the buyer has pushed things ahead a little bit. What the Commission has to look at is the fact that without a variance, the property cannot be used. In this case, without a variance, the property can still be used. The only loss would be that incurred by the developer because of going ahead with plans and construction to this point before getting the variance. In other words, any loss that has incurred, was self -incurred. Mr. Sherek stated what the Appeals Commission deals with are things that are unavoidable --things that are already in place when someone took over the operation. It became very difficult when someone was in the midst of causing the'problem and then asked for a variance. Mr. Moselle stated this plan -was developed from the original site plan approved by the City. The building pods were laid on that site plan. Those were the things he had to go by. He stated he cannot investigate each:. individual's job and he has to depend on the information given to him. Again. the ordinance which caused the problem was not an ordinance that was used veru much. Even the surveyor was not aware of it, so there was never an indication there was a problem until the day he brought the plans in. The site had already been dug at that time. When Mr. Clark went through the plans, he came up with the fact that they did not meet the setback because of the ordinance requirement. Mr. Moselle agreed it was his responsibility to monitor and make.. -sure things got.built right. a APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 16 Mr. Clark stated that aesthetically, the garage exiting to the -last seemed to work best. Having the driveway exiting to the south could create a traffic hazard. If there had been more time, the best thing would have been for the builder to "flip-flop" the house. He stated that Mr. Moselle was correct when he said that the overall conception plan was approved with the overall plat. Mr. Barna stated their real problem was the legal restriction regarding the hardship. The spirit of the code was being met, even without a stipulation that any future house on the property to the north face to the north. There was about 30 ft. from the curb to the side of the driveway and if the house to the north faced north and did the same thing by exiting the garage to the east, there would be no site line problems. He had no problem with the variance, but legally there was no hardship. The only hardship was the one imposed by the builder. Mr. Moselle stated his statement of hardship would be the possibility of losing a buyer for the house. MOTION BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED BY DR. VOS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Dr. Vos stated his initial reaction when looking at the construction was that someone had miscalculated. He shared some of the same concerns expressed by Mr. Barna, and that was that this was a self-imposed hardship. Looking at how the house was going to be located and looking at where the driveway would exit, the driveway would come out on the radius. If they tried to run the driveway so it was not on the radius, the front yard would essentially have to be full of concrete. The house looked small from the side if the garage door was put on the south side. He stated he felt a timeline was not a factor for being a hardship and was strictly between the buyer and the seller. That was something that was negotiable right up until the time you move in. He stated he would vote in favor of the variance request. Mr. Sherek stated he also shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Barna and Dr. Vos. The hardship was being created right at this meeting, and he would feel very bad about setting a precedent that would maybe encourage the lack of thorough research of city ordinances before doing a plan for a house. He stated he would vote against the variance request, even though he felt it was -a good plan. Under other circumstances, he could possibly vote for it. Ms. Savage stated Dr. Vos had expressed her concerns well. She felt the spirit of the code had been met by the developer's plan in the placement of the garage on the east side. She understood the concern for setting a precedent. However, she would vote in favor of the variance request. Mr. Barna stated he had no problem with the plan as presented, the aesthetics of it, and all the details of the variance, other than the fact that the APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 17 hardship was'self-imposed. If they approve this, it would be setting a precedent for other builders to do the,same thing. He would vote against the variance request. Mr. -Barna recommended -that the Commission make a motion recommending to City Council that the City 'Council approve the variance request, but expressing the Commission's concerns that there was no legal hardship and that the hardship was self- imposed.. Because of the Commission's concerns about sending a motion recommending approval or denial with a tie vote of 2 to 2, the Commission members decided to make a'motion to send this variance request on to the City Council without a recommendation. MOTX0V BY MS. SAVAGE, SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK, TO SEND VARIANCE, VAR #87-11, BY McMULLEN/MOSELLE, CONTRACTORS, TO CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED BY DR. VOS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE APRIL 14, 1987, APPEALS C014MXSSXON MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Res ectfully su mitted, Lynj Saba Recording Secretary. IaDTMN by` (buncilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant lot split, L. S. #87-02, with the following stipulations: (1) lot split is contingent upon approval of variances; (2) park fee on total subdivision is $3,405.61 of which $3,065.05 (amowk less 25 foot strip) is to be deferred until a building permit is issued on the proposed parcel 2; (3) easements for drainage per Rice Creek katershed approved plan to be granted prior to recording lot split; (4) freestanding sign to be upgraded by staining trim and refacing deteriorating sign faces; (5) slats to be installed on north and south storage yard fence, including gates; (6) shrubbery and trees to be installed along 72nd 4enue and west. of parking lot by June 30, 1987; (7) twenty-five foot strip,-,.fo be combined with Determan lot and filed with lot split; (8) petitioner to stripe parking lot; (9) petitioner work with staff to arrive at an apprpIfed parking expansion plan prior to final Council action, with the understanding the parking plan is to be implemented in conjunction with the sale.,. -,-a the northerly most lot created, and (10) a bond provided as surety for,"improvement. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote; all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. .11 WM B-1. Mr. Robertson, Community DeveV6/prtent Director, stated this is a, request for two variances to reduce lot:*rea from 1.5 to 1.1 acres and to reduce the rear yard setback fram 25 ,.,'" 5 feet for property generally located at 1131 72nd Avenue. He stated 'e hardship cited was the code in existence when the lot was purchased w ` not as stringent and by providing a five foot setback, the petitio ' r is attempting to come as close as possible to meeting existing req,; rements. Mr. Robertson stat;d the Appeals Commission recommended approval of these variances with slpulations that the north wall of the existing building remain as is w, Ali no openings and f inal approval contingent upon Council approval of e lot split request. NDTMN by, uncilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeal 'Commission and grant variance request, VAR #87-08, with the sti tion that the north wall of the existing building remain as is with no o ' nings. Seconded by Cbuncilwanan Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all v . ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. yr.•;u y�� a y�� i :- �- =-4�+� s N. E 15. 16. Mr. Robertson, (bnmunity Development Director, stated the code requires any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street shall be at least 25 feet f ram the property line of a side street. He stated construction on the house and garage recently started and the buyer would prefer to have his driveway out the east side of the garage which is 17.5 feet from the property line. He stated the setback requirment would be met if the door exited f ran the south side. Mayor Nee felt there was no adequate f inding for a variance and felt the problem was self-imposed. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, felt with a strict interpretation, the City would have a hard time justifying this variance. Mr. Moselle stated it was the buyer's choice to have the driveway on the east as an entryway was designed to come into the house frau the garage and with the garage door facing east, it would give more depth and room for entrance into the house. He stated the problem of coming onto the street on the south side was definitely a consideration. He stated if he had known about the setback requirment, he wouldn't have designed it this way. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to deny variance request, VAR #87-11 for property at 7130 Riverwood Drive N. E. Seconded by Councilman Goodspeed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. the Council received the minutes of the Planning Conunission meeting of April 22, 1987. 1987: MDTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes o the Charter Commission meeting of February 23, 1987. Seconded_ bCouncilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor N declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Robertson, Community Developl*& Director, stated this grant application is to acquire the remaining, -;seven parcels in the flood plain area of Riverview Heights Park. a stated the total estimated cost of the acquisition and relocati is $391,450, with the City committing 50% of the total cost or $195,72. - He stated the City has already designated $189,564 from the 1985-1988 G funds and an additional $6,161 would be available f ran other City -"ds. He stated the prel i ninary application must be f it ed by May 5, 1987;: MDTION byV.;=ouncilman Fitzpatrick to authorize the City Manager to submit the prelim4t4ry application for the LAWCON/LCMR funds for 1988. Seconded by -12- McMullen/Moselle May 5, 1987 430 Industrial Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55413 On May 4, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially denied your request for a variance, VAR #87=11, to decrease the required side yard setback of an attached accessory building which opens on a street side of a corner lot from 25 feet to 17.5 feet to allow the construction of a house and attached garage, on Lot 7, Block 2, Riverwood Park Addition, the same being 7130 Riverwood Drive N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 due to lack of demonstrated hardship. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, James L. Ibbinson Planning Coordinator � w 1 r � • 4 "-, McMullen/Moselle 430 Industrial Boulevard Minneapolis, M 55413 May 5, 1987 On May 4, 1987 the Fridley City ODuncil officially denied your request for a variance, VAR #87-11, to decrease the required side yard setback of an attached accessory building which opens on a street side of a corner lot from 25 feet to 17.5 feet to allow the construction of a house and attached garage, on Lot 7, Block 2, Riverwood Park Addition, the same being 7130 Riverwood Drive N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 due to lack of demonstrated hardship. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, James L. Robinson Planning Coordinator