Loading...
VAR 09.76City of, q9 qJ subnCt V l /�9'7. AT THE TOP or ME TWINS �� APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS I L • _ ___ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L _ DIV. r PHOTECTIVF. INSPECTION SEC. 1 � � CITY HALL FRIDLEY 1�.: �•� 55432 NUMWHnEv. DATE PAGE- OF APPkOVEU by _.__ 02-560-3450 910--F23 1 3/21/75 1 2 Soo Name ; , Address _ Phone X56/."` < Legal Lot o, Lf Block No. Tract or Addn. Description 3 Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc,, where applicable)t(e X�,, v y e Date M ting/Date Fepye�Receipt No. Signature 0 & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date 0 �° r :t AT THE TOP OF THF. TNIIN5 �UHJkG[ APPLI CST I ON TO BOARD OF APPEALS k e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PFIOTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 i i -T CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 '�•-- 612 560-3450 (Staff Report) >+IA411R 910-F23 [rev. 1. UA TE -7 3/21/.5 PAUL OF 2 2 APPROVI.O DY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by /® . List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for 51--la-i-is0to attend hearing. Plan Date Name To Attend Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom ` Name Date Phone or Mail Not,Qi,ffied Mr. & Mrs. John Hosch-6866 Madison St. N.E.✓ f' N Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Doth -6873 7th Street N.E.✓ Mr..& Mrs. Elmer Hansen -6857 Madison St. N.E-.v Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Szykulski-6860 Madison St. N.E;i Mr. Mr. & Mrs. Maril Williams -6874 Washington St.N:E.W & Mrs. Marvin Prindle 6870 Washington St. N•.E / Mr. & Mrs. Byron Johnson -6862 Washington St. N.E. ✓ Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Hencir -6851 Madison Street N:E.v**' W:. & Mrs. Leo Anderson -6841 Madison St. N. -E. ✓ Mr. & Mrs. Richard Durnin-6831 Madison St. N.E:�, Mr. & Mr. Philip Allison -6821 Madison Street N -.E. - Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Harris -6811 Madison Street N:E.,/ Mr. Mr. & Mrs. Gene Engelbrecht-6800 Madison St. N:E., & Mrs. Walter Miskiw-6861 Washinton St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Fisher -6865 Washington Street N.E/ Mr. & Mrs. Albert Smeins-6871 Washington St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. David Skjervold-6875 Washington St. N.E.V Mr. Mr: & Mrs. Robert Acton -6850 Jefferson St. N.E. & Mrs. Charles Mykkanen-6840 Jefferson St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Dorst-6830 Jefferson St. N.E.✓ Mr. & Mrs. William Gatlin -6842 Monroe St. N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Richard Lund -6836 Monroe Street N.E..✓ �, �- � �� 3 -- mom. �- -----___- _ _ - _ ��_ - -- __ i - � � ,- .� _ - / / � . __ ,�/ f '`� � - / � r .✓ � � i o �' /i,. / /' s fir � � 1 `; i � ,• �� F �)� �`` �� rr „ x i 1 � �, � /�I / / i i r, � � �� �� � �. � � � � � - > y � � � f� :� -�-. - , r 9q _ — __ fl ��� --.._ _ __ __ . -- - - _- _._ � � a _._ �. .._ ___ - .� l� __-� �-� -c �- - ___ a-- . _- -_ � _� _=E_ . --------A---__�_ ___�- __-- _-------_- __. _-�_ _ ___ _ - - _= >�� � � �� -�2� � F � o'er ., .� _-------_.��__ ---- ----�=-_A___---_�___ ►- �` NOTE: DUE TO ILLNESS AND'*PRIOR''COMMITTMENTS, THIS MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY; SEPTEMBER 15, 1976 ufff=t 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, September 14, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 3,b,(5a), Fridley City Code, to reduce the required 17 1/2 feet for a side yard widthon a street side of a corner lot to 14 1/2 feet to allow the construction of a 14 ft. by 27'ft. addition to an existing structure located on Lot 4, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 6, the same being 6875 Washington Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. David Skjervold, 6875 Washington Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from 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. September 15, 1976 Item #1 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6875 Washington St. N.E.. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4,B (5A) Corner lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet for living area of structure. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and reduce the line of sight encroachment into the neighbors front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family needs more space. The addition they propose is the best possible Olan considering their needs and plans for the future. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The verifying survey shows a street side yard setback of 28.8 feet. An addition on that side of the house would reduce the side yard setback to 14.8 feet. A variance to 14.5 feet has been requested to allow for any error in suvey or construction. Although this proposed construction would limit "building line of sight": vision for neighborhing properties, the existing house is over 60 feet from the South property line. The addition would not impair vision across the corner in the "vision safety control" area. Staff feels that the neighbors concerns should be considered first in this matter, but staff has no objection to this variance request. NOTE: Subsequent to Public Notices being sent, a verifying survey with the addition drawn to scale was submitted. The drawing indicated that the owner intended to also encroach into the front yard by 2 feet. Therefore a front yard variance, Section 205.053, 4, A, from the required 35 feet to 33 feet, as well as a side yard variance is required to build as planned. The owner asked if he couldn't include the front yard request with this request. Staff gave the petitioner a list of all neighbors within 200 feet and asked that all those on the list sign in agreement to waive the 10 day notification requirement. It was explained that perhaps the Appeals Commission would then be willing to consider both the fron and side yard variance requests at this time. September 15, 1976 Item #1 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6675 Washington St...N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4,B (5A) Corner lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet for living area of structure. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and reduce the line of sight encroachment into. the neighbors front yard° B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family needs more space. The addition they propose is the best possible plan considering their needs and plans for the future. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The verifying survey shows a street side yard setback of 26.6 feet. An addition on that side of the house would reduce the side yard setback to 14.6 feet. A variance to 14.5 feet has been requested to allow for any error in suvey or construction. Although this proposed construction would limit "building line of sight". vision,for neighborhing properties, the existing house is over 60 feet from the South property line. The addition would not impair vision across the corner in the "vision safety control" area. Staff feels that the neighbors concerns should be considered first in this matter, but staff has no objection to this variance request. NOTE: Subsequent to Public Notices being sent, a verifying survey with the addition drawn to scale was submitted. The drawing indicated that the owner intended to also encroach into the front yard by 2 feet. Therefore a front yard variance, Section 205.053, 4, A, from the required 35 feet to 33 feet, as well as a side yard variance is required to build as planned. The owner asked if he couldn't include the front yard request with this request. Staff gave the petitioner a. list of all neighbors within 200 feet and asked that all those on the list sign in agreement to waive the 10 day notification requirement. It was explained that perhaps the Appeals Commission would then be willing to consider both the fron and side yard variance requests at this time. FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 15.,-1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Gabel, Barna, Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Schnabel, Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Gabel at 7:35 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 1976 MOTION by*Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the minutes of the August 10, 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1`. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4, B (5a), FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 17 2 FEET FOR A SIDE YARD WIDTH ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER LOT TO 14 2 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 27 FT. ADDITION TO AN.EXISTING STRUCTURE, LOCATED ON LOT fit, BLOCK 31 RICE CREEK TERRACE PLAT 6, THE SAME BEING 6875 WASHINGTON STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. David Skjervold, 6875 Washington Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT •A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 41 B (5A) Corner lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet for living area of structure. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and reduce the line of sight encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family needs more space. The addition they propose is the best possible plan considering their needs and plans for the future. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The verifying survey shows a street side yard setback of 28.8 feet. An addition on that side of the house would reduce the side yard setback to Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 2 14.8 feet. A variance to 11.5 feet has been requested to allow for any error in survey or construction. Although this proposed construction would limit "building line of sight" vision for neighboring properties, the existing house is over 60 feet from the South property line. The addition would not impair vision across the corner in the "vision safety control" area. Staff feels that the neighbor's concerns should be considered first in this matter, but staff has no objection to this variance request. NOTE: Subsequent to Public Notices being sent, a verifying survey with the addition drawn to scale was submitted. The drawing indicated that the owner intended to also encroach into the front yard by 2 feet. Therefore a front yard variance, Section 205.053, 4,, A, from the required 35 feet to 33 feet, as well as a side yard variance is required to build as planned. The owner asked if he couldn't include the front yard request with this request. Staff gave the petitioner a list of all neighbors within 200 feet and asked that all those on the list sign an agreement to waive the 10 day notification requirement. It was explained that perhaps the Appeals Commission would then be willing to consider both the front and side yard variance requests at this time. Mr. Skjervold stepped forward to present his request. He stated that they had decided over the winter that they wanted more space in their house, but they didn't want to move and leave the community they were in. He showed the Commission a plan and photographs of the existing house and explained where the addition would be. He explained the roof would be the same as the house, and there would be a patio in the Southeast corner. Mr. Skjervold told the Commission that after they applied for the variance, they found out their addition would also be encroaching into the front yard and City Staff had informed him the only thing they could do would be to apply for another variance or have all the neighbors sign a waiver. He presented the Commission with that waiver. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission receive the waiver for the 10 day notification period concerning the front yard variance and signed by 22 of Mr. Skjervold's neighbors. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Gabel checked the signatures against the mailing list, and found that all of the neighbors within 200 feet had signed the waiver. Chairperson Gabel asked how many children they had, and Mr. Skjervold replied they had three children; 2 boys ages 12 and 8, and a girl 5 years old. Mr. Skjervold explained the addition would be a family room with full basement underneath for storage and a game room, and there would also be a large walk-in closet. Mrs. Gabel asked if this connected to the kitchen, and Mr. Skjervold replied the entry would be through the kitchen to the family room. Mrs. Gabel asked about the trees, and Mr. Skjervold replied that one was in danger, but he had been advised by a nursery man that it could be moved. Mr. Skjervold showed where the front steps were, and explained how they would bring the roof out two feet over the front steps for -protection from the weather. • Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 152 1976 He showed on a diagram how the eave would extend over the steps. Page 3 Mr. Barna asked if this was going to be -contracted out, and Mr. Skjervold replied it would be. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the variance requests for both the side yard and front yard setbacks as presented. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.112, 1 FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM ACREAGE FOR A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT FROM 5 ACRES TO 3 ACRES, LOCATED ON LOT 19, EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FEET THEREOF, AND EXCEPT THE WEST 17 FEET TAKEN FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, PRESENTLY ZONED C-1 (GENERAL OFFICE AND LIMITED BUSINESSES), AND THE 14EST 147.74 FEET OF LOT 18, PRESENTLY ZONED•R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS), ALL IN AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 129, ALL OF SAID PROPERTY IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING TO R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), THE SAME BEING LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 73RD AVENUE N.E. AND CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. (Request by Evert R. Swanson, 258 Windsor Lane, New Brighton, Minnesota, 55114). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.153, requiring five (5) or more acres for -a townhouse development. Review of code indicated a conflict between 5 acre request and area/unit request. After staff discussion it was suggested that perhaps the public purpose served by this section of the Code was to provide an adequate number of units which make the affiliated townhouse association economically feasible. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Restriction would make owner -occupied townhouses impossible. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This.request is being presented at this time in order that the variance and rezoning requests may be presented to Council at the same time. This would eliminate the request having to be returned to either one or the other Commission if only one aspect were handled first. As nearly as staff can determine, the five (5) acre requirement evolved from an estimate of the minimum number of units that would be required to make the townhouse association economically practical. The other portions of the code limit lot coverage and regulate open areas. (See Section 205.1113, A & B). Staff feels that the petitioner should show how the proposed development will,in fact, provide for a townhouse association which will not be an excessive burden of the occupants. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 4 Mr, Evert Swanson, property owner, and Mr. Albert Hoffineyer, architect, approached the Board to explain the request. Mr. John Young, 7343 Hayes St. N.E.; Mr. Jim Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes St. N.E.; Mr. Michael J. Virnig, 1365 73rd Ave.N.E.; and Mr. Lawrence McCabe, 7328 Hayes St. N.E. also stepped forward to view the plans. Mr. Hoffineyer showed the Commission and the interested parties a color -coded plan for the townhouses, and explained what the different colors represented. He stated they were proposing six buildings with six units each,.so there would be a total of 36 units in all. He explained that they would be putting a fence all around so people wouldn't walk through, and would be landscaping behind this fence so there would be complete screening from the adjoining property. He said they were proposing that this be built in stages, going in sequence from one to six, and showed on the plans where building #1 would be located. He said they hoped to do this over a period of about one year. Mt. Hoffineyer was asked if these buildings would be classified as townhouses, and he replied that they would be owner -occupied condominium townhouses. He explained they would cost between $40,000 and $60,000, and could have one, two or three bedrooms. He was asked if he was talking four or five people per unit, and he answered that there probably would be no more than four people to a unit. He said that as far as traffic and interference with the neighborhood went, the amount of people that these townhouses would generate wouldn't make a significant difference. He explained they wanted this to be a community unto itself, and they didn't want kids tramping through there. He -showed where the fence,._.rould be, and explained it would be eight feet high. Mr. Holden stated that seven feet was the limit, so Mr. Hoffineyer said they would make it seven feet. Mr. Hoffineyer was asked if there would be rental with option to buy, and he replied there would not be. Mr. McCabe noted that if there were four people in every unit, there would be a total of 144 people on three acres, and thought that would be quite crowded. Mr. Hoffineyer said that if they didn't rezone, they would go commercial and put in an office building or a restaurant with a parking lot in the back. Mr. Young asked when the fencing would go up, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied it would go up first. He added that they wanted to save as many trees as possible. Chairperson Gabel asked if there would be any tot lots, and Mr. Hoffineyer answered there wouldn't be, as they didn't want to encourage children. He added that there wouldn't be welfare people in there or a lot of kids. Mr. McCabe commented that he found it hard to believe that anyone would want to invest $40,000 to $60,000 in a townhouse with a junkyard across the street. Mr. Hoffineyer explained they would be putting up a buffer. Mr. Hoffineyer explained that they had a flexible plan. He said they had a basic split -entry plant with one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, living room and dining room. He said they could expand those units with options and they could have a loft, another bathroom upstairs, a -recreation room, etc. He explained that a person could even finish it himself; buying a shell and expanding as the need arose. Mr. Hoffineyer stated that they wanted these units to be attractive, and he was concerned about the surrounding neighborhood. He stated