VAR 03.755P City of Triffley
m AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS'
WINS
s -
U.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
d i / PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
1
CITY HALL FF?IDLEY 55432
sueJEct
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
nuMRER
g10�-F23
REV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAG E OFJZPP�OVED
1 2800
HV
Nam Address�r _ _ . g Phone
Legal
Description
Lot No.
3
Block No.Tract
�
or Addn.
f�l�E�d �'If��)01,7
Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property
showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)
„Zeta 3�
l �--•
64y ""/ 40— aS
Date
Meet ng Da e Free Receipt No,
_ff
ignatur �-^-------moo
Comments & Recommendations by
the Board of Appeals
City -Council Action and Date
i
i
City of Fridley
AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS
L
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC.
1
i CITY HALL FRIDL£Y 55432
`.1
612-560-3450
SUBJECT
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
(Staff Report)
NUMfiEH
910-F23
HEV.
1
DATE
3/21/75
PAGE OF
2 2
APPROVED BY
800
Staff Comments
Board members notified of meeting by Y 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
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
& Mrs. Robert Gunville, 1110 Gardena Avenue
& Mrs. Ronald Jensen, 1120 Gardena Avenue NE,
& Mrs. Edmund Hildebrandt, 5946 Hackmann Avenue NE
& Mrs. Robert Christie, 5930 Hackmann Avenue NE, '
Gary Gorham, 9050 Collins Drive, Anoka, IIT 5530
& Mrs. Howard LaPray, 5895 Tennison Drive NE--
E-Mr. & Mrs. Henry Stiles, 5885 Tennison Drive NE,
& Mrs. Charles Swanson, 5945 Hackman NE, "
& Mrs. James Soderberg, 5875 Tennison Drive NE.
& Mrs. Duane McGonigle, 5865 Tennison Drive NE'
& Mrs. Harold Andrews, 5855 Tennison Drive_ NES
Gregory Balego, 5849 Tennison Drive NE,
Mam Office 5716066
UBURBAN
6875 Hryhway No. 65 N.E.
N®INEERING Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
INC—__—___
South Off.co 8906510
Sfrnm-rpnt Fngk-ering•Rnd 7vstrnR • Laid �urrewng • Land Planning 1101 Cliff Road
Burnsville, {rMiinnesota 55337
JA)\elr-�St D7— C -
Certificate of Survey for� 1�1� QCI
2io.�4 r OA'-
I - STnR Y,
F2A+-1G- b t3+2icb�
's 59ra s
---- --- - - - FRtDLE1r
o I)2r�c�%�r5 ivoll +Itnrtultj�, BOARD OF APPEALS
__ �}291orQS C�><; 41 EXHIBIT No.2A
MtsnNc on 2 7
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above
described land, and of the location of 11 buildings, there Ill and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on
said land. As surveyed by me this_LLday of 4 d 1 A. D, 19 ' }
SUBURBAN' ENGINEERING, INC.
Engineers ,Syeveyors 3
Not PV4�AII Rights Reserved
1
Ivor'+
�o� Cor'rta�
17
28.ra5
� 1
1
N '
Q
kA - 1� o I
{ �Qo/�tJsF—
r
57 E
1 %.14.7± wird t r e I
/.
0.ObC-es�"
I
I✓on
s•
it
�
r2'.' I
'Ay
� o�Gorrl¢f
2io.�4 r OA'-
I - STnR Y,
F2A+-1G- b t3+2icb�
's 59ra s
---- --- - - - FRtDLE1r
o I)2r�c�%�r5 ivoll +Itnrtultj�, BOARD OF APPEALS
__ �}291orQS C�><; 41 EXHIBIT No.2A
MtsnNc on 2 7
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above
described land, and of the location of 11 buildings, there Ill and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on
said land. As surveyed by me this_LLday of 4 d 1 A. D, 19 ' }
SUBURBAN' ENGINEERING, INC.
Engineers ,Syeveyors 3
Not PV4�AII Rights Reserved
1
"! w
g :e t•; =:3
,. '��8�,
:� d - n T'aA�`�
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City
of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at
6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, April 26, 1977, at 7:30
P.M. to consider the following matter:
L(
A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4, B2, to
reduce the required side yard from the required 5 feet
to 1.7 feet to allow the construction of an attached
23' x 23' garage, located on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview
Manor Addition, the same being 5875 Tennison Drive N.E.,
Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by James Soderberg,
5875 Tennison Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432).
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CHAIRPERSON
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 contine to the City Council through
the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission.
Item 7, April 26, 1977
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
5875 Tennison Drive N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4, (B4) requiring a 5 foot side yard setback for
an attached garage.
Public purpose served is to provide space between individual structures
to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the rear yard
for emergencies and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential
neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
The variance is needed to allow for a full double garage. The added
area is needed as we have an existing side exit door which cannot
be feasibly rearranged. Due to this, we will lose 3 ft. of our
garage space inside the proposed garage because of stairs needed
for side exit.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Mr. Soderberg intends to convert his existing tuck under garage into
living area and add a double stall,�single story garage to the South
side of his house. The new garage would be designed to match the
existing house with the present house door on the South, entering
the new garage with steps down into the garage floor level. The
petitioner feels that this landing and step area would make it
difficult to reduce the size of the garage any more than proposed.
The house to the South is 11 feet from the common property line.
The new garage would be 12.7 feet from the house to the South.
Item 7, April 26, 1977
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
5875 Tennison Drive N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4,.(B4) requiring a 5 foot side yard setback for
an attached garage.
Public purpose served is to provide space between individual structures
to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access.to the rear yard
for.emergencies and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential
neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
The variance is needed to allow for a full double garage. The added
area is needed as we have an existing side exit door which cannot
be feasibly rearranged. Due to this, we will lose 3 ft. of our
garage space inside the proposed garage because of stairs needed
for side exit.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Mr. Soderberg intends to convert his existing tuck under garage into
living area and add a double stall, -single story garage to the South
side of his house. The new garage would be designed to match the
existing house with the present house door on the South, entering
the new garage with steps down into the garage floor level. The
petitioner feels that this landing and step area would make it
difficult to reduce the size of the garage any more than proposed.
The house to the South is 11 feet from the common property line.
The new garage would be 12.7 feet from the house to the South.
Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 Page 16
a
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated at this time that she
didn't feel that the city should encourage or approve any
building on 40 -foot lots-- She suggested that Mr. Willey
try to request for a vacation of the street in order to
make his lot the acceptable size.
Mr. Willey wanted to know if this request for a
variance would go to City Council.
Chairwoman Schnabel said that it would go before
City Council no matter what way their decision went.
Mr. Plemel made the comment that even if the street
was vacated, the neighbors would probably have the same
objections.
Mr- Kemper agreed but said that their objections
could not have that much say. He felt that their main
concern was the size of the 40 -foot lot -
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals
Commission deny the variance requests. Upon a voice vote,
4 ayes 1 nay, the motion carried four to one.
Mr. Barna wanted to justify his nay. He said that
he felt this was a very unique lot because there is a
nonexistent street that has created a 40 -foot lot which
requires the variances. He feels that if the street had
been vacated in 1973, this problem would not be before
the Commission now.
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that this request would
;go to City Council on either May 9th or May 16th- She said
that Mr. Willey and everyone concerned will be notified.
7• REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE, T
Minnesota 554321•
OF SECTION 205.0531 41 B41
REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM
0 1• FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
231 GARAGE, LOCATED ON LOT 3,
R ADDITION, THE SAME BEING
•, FRIDLEY MINNESOTA• {Request
Tennison Drive NE., Fridley,
MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to open the Public
Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing
was opened.
Appeals Commission Meeting -- April 26, 1977 Page 15
Chairwoman Schnabel was concerned about the situation
of the house in that 40 -feet would extend to the rear of the
property and behind the adjacent lots• She had viewed the
lot that day and found it very hard to imagine the house on
that lot• She felt that IF 67th were vacated and the house
turned around it would be much less of an encroachment on
the other property owners•
Mr• Willey indicated that he would consider turning
the house around should the street be vacated.
Chairwoman Schnabel wanted to know if filler would
be required•
Mr• Holden responded. that there wouldn't be much required•
He said that it would be a matter of landscaping around
the structure
There was considerable discussion on the fact that
the land in the area was basically sand•
Mr• Barna wanted to know if Mr• Willey would consider
going for another vacation of the street•
Mr• Willey felt that if he had support, he would apply
for another vacation request•
There was some discussion among the Commission as to
why the street wasn't vacated. Also they discussed'a few
points on the drawings Mr• Willey gave them to look over•
MOTION By Barna, seconded by Plemel, to close the public
Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public
Hearing was closed•
Mr• Kemper said that in face of the overwhelming opposition
of the neighbors and in the light of the fact that the City
does not, as a rule, approve constructing on a 40 -foot lot,
he couldn't go with the variance request• He did add that
should a vacation request of the street be successful, then
he felt that it would be a whole new thing as far as deciding
how to.handle.this lot•
Mr• Plemel didn't feel that it would be a whole new
issue• He said that it would be the same lot, same elevation,
same factors involved•
Mrs• Gabel indicated that the entire point of the
request is for a variance and not a vacation and the land has
not been vacated•
Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 page 17
r ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A• PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4,,{B4} requiring a 5 foot side yard
setback for an attached garage
Public purpose served is to provide space between
individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire,
to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies
and to limit thfe condition of crowding in the
residential neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
The variance is needed to allow for a full double
garage- The added area is needed as we have.an existing
side exit door which cannot be feasibly rearranged.
Due to this, we will lose 3 ft• of our garage space.
inside the proposed garage because of stairs needed
for side exit.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Mr. Soderberg intends to convert his existing.tuck
under garage into living area and add a double stall,
single story garage to the South side of his house-''
The new garage would be designed to match the existing
house with the present house door on the South entering
the new garagewithsteps down into the garage floor
level. The petitioner feels that this landing and step
area would make it difficult to reduce the size of the
garage any more than proposed. The house to the South
is 11 feet from the common property line. The new
garage would be 12.7 feet from,the house to the South.
Mr.. & Mrs- James P• Soderberg of 5875 Tennison Drive N.E.
were present.
Mr. Holden indicated that Mr- Soderberg planned to
remove the tuck under garage and add to the other side of
the house a larger garage and driveway. He explained to
the Commission where the garage would be {Commission had
a picture of the property in question}.
Chairwoman Schnabel asked the Soderberg*s to show the
Commission what they were proposing for the property-
Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 19?? Page 18
,
Mr• Soderberg had a proposed plan with him that he showed:
to the Commission- He also explained to them how he was
going to situate the garage on the property. He said that he
planned to drop the garage down some so that they would have
less elevation going up to the garage. However, he said that
by doing this he would have to have stairs going from the
door of the basement into the garage, thus he would lose enough
space, that if he were to build a smaller garage, he wouldn't
be able to put two cars in it.
Mrs. Soderberg explained that they had considered
moving the exit door from that wall- But, she said, they
couldn't move that door to any other wall inside the kitchen
because they would lose their eating area in the kitchen-
Mr- Soderberg indicated on the plans the location
of the exit -door into the garage and where their eating area
is located- He also indicated that the neighbor that would
be effected at all had no objections.
Mr. Kemper asked if Mr- Soderberg would be doing the
construction himself.
Mr- Soderberg answered that no, he would contract the
work out.
Mr- Plemel asked about the roof.
Mr. Soderberg said he would drop the roof down•
While looking at the plan and at the picture, the
Commission along with Mr- & Mrs• Soderberg, discussed several
points.
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated to Mr- Soderberg that the
existing garage would have to be made into liveable area- It
could no longer be used as a garage -
Mr. Soderberg indicated he planned to close off the
existing garage. He doesn't plan to actually live in the area,
but would put in "escape" windows so that any time in the
future, it could be made into apart of the basement.
Mr. Barna wanted to know if he had considered putting
the additional garage at the same level as the present one•
Mr- Soderberg said that they did consider it but felt it
would be a determent to the house because he didn't have the
money to add on top of the garage-
Some discussion was held on the langscapin_g plans of
the proposed garage in relation to the house and the now
existent garage•
Appeals Commission Meeting — April 26, 1977 pages
Mr- Soderberg did indicate that he would be filling
in the area by the present garage
Chairwoman Schnabel mentioned that she felt that the
proposed garage would definitely add to the appearance of
the home-
MOTION.by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the public
hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public
Hearing was closed.
Mr. Barna didn't feel that the 1.9 feet was exceeding
the 15 --foot code by that much- He would not object to
this variance request.
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals
Commission approves the side yard setback variance request.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried.
Chairwoman Schnabel informed Mr- & Mrs- Soderberg that
the Appeals Commission had approved their variance request
and they could proceed by applying for a building permit.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the commission discussed
a few viewpoints they had in the decisions and discussions
held during the evening- Also they discussed a few items
from past meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals
Meeting of April 26, 1977, be adjourned. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
,1,176-67 ;� 0,b, tZ,,�Z/
Mary Lee Carhill, Secretary