VAR 87-19w
COMMSSION APPLICATION REVIEW
Department Number pile Date I
Meeting Date
CITYO Planning 43 5/26/87
FRIDLEY
File Address /Description VAR #87-19 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST
Jenny Riley 1531 Woodside Court
reduce rear yard s.b. from 25' to 14' RETURN TO PLANNING
&�DARYL COMMENTS
---DEBBIE--
5' p '
J M f/1,
---dDEBB1E—
JOHN
�-!DEBBIE
ODARREL
)EBBIE--
LYDE
)EBBIE —
MARK
--DEBBIE
LEON ,--�
— DEBBIE
CITY OP FRIDLEY`.
6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E.
' FRIDLEY, MN 55432
o (612) 571-3450
VARIANCE REQUEST FORM
VARIANCE #S r)
VARIANCE FEE RECEIPT # ��
SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE, 2 1-7
PROPERTY INFORMATION
PROPERTY ADDRESS I S 1 LLI ® moo & j* 9L CO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 7- BLOCK 1 TRACT/ADDITION R pct Quml— ftLrj!CS 2 tt
PRESENT ZONING
VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building,
variance(s), where applicable.
►. . ' om k T M Z ?q. t
Section of the Code:
List specific hardship(s) which require the variance(s): O 1ii-t, wa.
&a4 6ve '�D d i-4 )orw,4 t a vdu cl `. - %!i wee, wr1M tz,&�
V
't�& ,vi e o-" , & ( &k& k4Z
FEE OWNER INFORMATION As
NAME (please print) M-1 (', 0 A -SO- C, PHONE 405: 00/
ADDRESS
SIGNATUF
Note to
#######I
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME (please.print
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
###########################
##########################################
APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE
CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE
STIPULATIONS:
FOB CITY USE ONLY
Notification of petitioner and property owners within 200 feet:
Name/Address
mate notified
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
r
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
s
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
CIVIC CENTER . 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450
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, May 26, 1987, in regard to the
following matter:
Consideration of a variance request, VAR #87-19, by Jenny
Riley, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03, D, 3a, of the Fridley
City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 14
feet to bring an already existing three season porch into
legal conforming use on Lot 2, Block 1, Rice Creek Estates
Second Addition, the same being 1531 Woodside Court, 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 BErZOLD
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 recommendation from the Appeals Commission.
MAILING LIST
VAR #87-19
1531 Woodside Court
Donny M. Riley James Dahl
2501 - 13th Terrace NW 1520 Rice Creek Road
New Brighton, MN 55112 Fridley, MN 55432
Michael Serie Lester Chies
1531 Woodside Court 1530 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
Appeals 5/13/87
Edward C1arK
6251 Kerry Lane
Fridley, MN 55432
Daniel Ceynowa
6221 Rice Creek Drive
Fridley, NN 55432
Steven Resch Ronald Marsh Michael Roach
8535 Central Ave. N.E. 1490 Rice Creek Road 6211 Rice Creek Drive
Mpls, MN 55432 Fridley, M 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
Lawrence Bloomberg James Ring
1531 Woodside Court 1500 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
Leer..Wraspir
6201 Rice Creek Drive
Fridley, MN 55432
Richard Svanda Theodore Theilman Dennis Christensen
1521 Woodside Court 1540 Rice Creek Road 6220 Rice Creek Drive
Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
Kathleen McGee Gary O'Brycki
6240 Rice Creek Drive 6267 Kerry Lane
Fridley, NN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
Dennis Forstrom Ralph Menard
6230 Rice Creek Drive 6259 Kerry Lane
Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432
• Item #3, May 26, 1987
rMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
1531 WCODSIDE OOUIRT N.E.
VAR #87-19
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REDUIREM ENT:
Section 205.07.03, D, 3a, requires a rear yard setback of not less than
25 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
"After my husband was diagnosed with leukemia we decided to build the
porch to avoid bug bites which will result in an infection. EL- died in
May 18, 1985. "
C. At NISTRATWE STAFF REVIEW:
The petitioner added a porch onto the rear of their dwellling without
first obtaining a building permit. The porch extends to within
approximately 14 feet of the rear property line. City Code calls for a
minimum of 25 feet between the rear lot line and the dwelling. The
purpose of this variance now is to bring the property up to code. If
the Board approves this request, staff recommends you stipulate that
the petitioner insure that erosion to the north does not increase over
present levels.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 PAGE 7
\anld stated that even though Mr. & Mrs. Bolling did not object to the
, it did concern him that a future owner might want to build on
towards the Franta's house. If this variance was approved, the
n would have to deny any future variance request because of th
d area .already.
Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public he ring.
i vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared a public
clos d at 8:08 p.m.
Mr. Barna sta\west,
did not -like to see an addition with a g in the wall;
yet, he also like to see a wallcoming so close to a property line.
With the propft. from the lot line with a 24 inch verhang, it would'
put the overhthe lot line or over the lot line.
Dr. Vos statesome real concerns with gettin this close to a lot
line with anyu Looking out the dining ro m windows from the
neighbors to st,t a proposed bedroom would ok like it was in their
back yard. Hfelt there was another creat've way of getting this kind
of space but nother 6-8 ft. He was alre y uncomfortable with the
existing 5 fthe back orner of the hous .
Mr. Sherek stated he had the ame concerns Also, he was very concerned
about a "zero" clearance; and v'thout a irrent survey, they are not really
sure if the property line was ri ht.
Pts. Savage stated she sympathized i the petitioner's problems and there
was obviously a need for an additio She also could understand why the
petitioner wanted to build the ad ti n in the location he had proposed,
but she shared the same concerns expre sed by the other Commissioners in
bringing the addition so close o the p operty line.
Mr. Betzold stated he felt1 the Commis 'oners were very sympathetic to
the petitioner's situation but they also h d a mandate they had to follow
that there had to be som hing unique about he property that would make it
a hardship to go along th the code. He did of think the hardship was
quite as defined as i needed to be. In any a nt, he would definitely like
this to go on to the sty Council as the Appeals Commission was very uncom-
fortable about any ind of structure being so clo a to the property line.
MOTION by Ms. Sa age to send variance request, VAR 7-18, by Richard and
aS yne Franta, to the City Council without a recom ndation.
MOTION DIED OR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Barn stated he would like to recommend that the Comms Sion recommend
approva of a variance from 10 ft. to 5 ft. There was alre dy the need for
a 5 ft variance, because the house was already only 5 ft. om the property
line It would mean moving the addition over to the east 5 f ., and the eaves
.—.1a b 1 to the lot line than the existing eave are.
not a any c oser
APPEALS CO14ISSIOM MEETING MAY 26 1987 PAGE 10
was a retaining wall between the two properties and as lon4 as that wall was
maintained, there should be no problem.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public
hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Barna stated the hardship had definitely been established because the
addition was seven years old and was built by a person who was now deceased.
This was no fault of the new ovrners of the property nor the fault of the
previous owner who was the wife of the person who built the addition. There
has been no objections expressed by the neighbors. The addition was nice
looking. There was an extreme encroachment into the rear yard, but he thought
the layout of the yard and the front yard setback on the cul-de-sac only left
about a 60 ft. depth on the western lot line, so he would have no objection
to granting the variance.
Ms. Savage agreed. She stated obviously there was a serious present hardship
and that was that the porch would have to be removed if the variance was not
granted. She felt the spirit of the code was being met by the size of the
adjoining lots, and there was certainly plenty of green space. She would agree
to granting the variance.
Mr. Sherek stated he had a hard time with this variance request. He could
understand the new buyers' interest in the house because of the three -season
porch because that influenced the purchase of.his present house which has a
three -season porch. He realized that the hardship was demonstrated for the
new owners and that in other circumstances, he would be totally in favor of
this. The City Council has made a definitive statement about construction
without permission for variances and without permits; and even though he
was in favor of granting the variance, he would vote "no" in order for this
to go to the City Council for their consideration and final decision.
Dr. Vos stated he had no objection to the variance.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council
the approval of variance request, VAR #87-19, by Jenny Riley, pursuant to
Chapter 205.07.03.D, 3a, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 14 feet to bring an already existing three season
porch into legal conforming use on Lot 2, Block 1, Rice Creek Estates Second
Addition, the same being 1531 Woodside Court, Fridley, Mn., with the stipu-
lation that the property owner ensure that erosion to the north does not
increase over present levels.
Upon a voice vote, Betzold, Barna, Savage, Vos voting aye, Sherek voting nay,
Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried.
Mr. Betzold stated this would go to the City Council on June 15.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY
P
10R
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend t ity Council approval
of variance request, VAR #87-18, by Richard and Jane Fr a, pursuant to
Chapter 205.07.03, D, 2a, of the Fridley City Code reduce the required
side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet, to a the construction of
additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, van Hills Addition, the same
being 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E., Fridley innesota, with the following
stipulations:
1. There be no openings he west wall of the addition that would
be closer than 20 from the existing structure to the west.
2. A certified la survey be obtained before the issuance of.a
building pe Mit.
Upon a voicee, Barna, Sherek, Savage, and Vos'voting aye, Betzold voting
nay, Chairperrson Betzold declared the motion carried.
Mr,,,B'etzold stated this item would go to City Council on June 15.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #87-19, BY JE11NY RILEY, PURSUANT
CREEK. ESTATES
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public
hearing open at 8:23 p.m.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
1531 WOODSIDE COURT N.E.
VAR #87-19
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07.03. D, 3a, requires a rear yard setback of not less
than 25 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard
space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"After my husband was diagnosed with leukemia, we decided to build
the porch to avoid bug bites which will result in an infection.
He died in May 18, 1985."
10S
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
PAGE 9
The petitioner added a porch onto the rear of their dwelling without
first obtaining a building permit. The porch extends to within
approximately 14 feet of the rear property line. City Code calls for
a minimum of 25 feet between the rear lot line and the dwelling. The
purpose of this variance now is to bring the property up to code. If
the Board approves this request, staff recommends you stipulate that
the petitioner insure that erosion to the north does not increase over
present levels.
Mr. Clark statedthe addition was built in 1981. The petitioner's deceased
husband Contracted a carpenter to help him build the addition. For some
reason, they did not take out a building permit. The City didn't notice the
addition until they were looking at the lot to the rear where there was a
variance request a couple of weeks ago for a garage.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner has now remarried. She recently sold the
house and there are new owners in the house. The new owners were also in the
audience.
Mr. Clark stated there was a partial cul-de-sac in front of the lot which
meant the house had to be built closer to the back lot line. The house
before the addition was 26 ft. off the back lot line. He stated the
petitioner had brought in several pictures of the property.
Mr. Clark stated the structure looked alright. It.was aesthcetically pleasing;
but if the petitioner's request was denied, the structure would have to be
removed at the expense, lie believed, of the petitioner and which would probably
cause great grief to the new owners who bought the house with the room already
constructed.
Ms. Jenny Riley stated this had come as a big surprise to her as she had just
closed on the house the day she was notified that the addition was in violation
of city code. She stated her late husband was good at building and remodeling.
She did not get involved with it, and she did not know the addition was put
on without a building permit.
Mr. Mike Serie stated he was the new owner of the property. He stated this
also came as a great shock to them. The way the yard was enclosed,he did not
think the three -season porch was aesthetically unpleasing to any of the
neighbors, and there did not seem to be any objections to it. They would like
to see the variance approved and the porch remain in place. The porch was
definitely a selling point for them in buying the house.
Dr. Vos asked Mr. Clark what was meant about the erosion in the staff report.
Mr. Clark stated he believed the folder for this property had some past
history when the house was being built about some erosion. This was before
the vegetation grew in. To his knowledge, there was no erosion today. There
10T
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 26, 1987 _ PAGE 10
was a retaining wall between the two properties and as lonq as that wall was
maintained, there should be no problem.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the public
hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Barna stated the hardship had definitely been established because the
addition was seven years old and was built by a person who was now deceased.
This was no fault of the new owners of the property nor the fault of the
previous owner who was the wife of the person who built the addition. There
has been no objections expressed by the neighbors. The addition was nice
looking. There was an extreme encroachment into the rear yard, but he thought
the layout of the yard and the front yard setback on the cul-de-sac only left
about a 60 ft. depth on the western lot line, so he would have no objection
to granting the variance.
Ms. Savage agreed. She stated obviously there was a serious present hardship
and that was that the porch would have to be removed if the variance was not
granted. She felt the spirit of the code was being met by the size of the
adjoining lots, and there was certainly plenty of green space. She would agree
to granting the variance.
Mr. Sherek stated he had a hard time with this variance request. He could
understand the new buyers' interest in the house because of the three -season
porch because that influenced the purchase of ,his present house which has a
three -season porch. He realized that the hardship was demonstrated for the
new owners and that in other circumstances, he would be totally in favor of
this. The City Council has made a definitive statement about construction
without permission for variances and without permits; and even though he
was in favor of granting the variance, he would vote "no" in order for this
to go to the City Council for their consideration and final decision.
Dr. Vos stated he had no objection to the variance.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council
the approval of variance request, VAR #87-19, by Jenny Riley, pursuant to
Chapter 205.07.03.D, 3a, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 14 feet to bring an already existing three season
porch into legal conforming use on Lot 2, Block 1, Rice Creek Estates Second
Addition, the same being 1531 Woodside Court, Fridley, Mn., with the stipu-
lation that the property owner ensure that erosion to the north does not
increase,over present levels.
Upon a voice vote, Betzold, Barna, Savage, Vos voting aye, Sherek voting nay,
Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried.
Mr. Betzold stated this would go to the City Council on June 15.
as
/00 IFM Sc 7f
/Z
/,l
pvo)
(960)
,9
w �Z,
eyZQ
122,
101,
O"a
9
d -704 FYI- 1 0 60 r vin,
#87-19 10 u
y Riley
Aw
XI
MW
OP All
LANAr
®r
w
..4 w to)
9
- )40
owop
G 7
k 17 1w (Bal I
7W
/PLO% 9 Ift I"A sk Aak %0"2 'Kill
AOP.
61 .(/14) �-j
10
a c\ Pi
101
01
XV4 ot k
o
A)
2
L9 11c,
3ovv 410) .1 411)
V N V
4
W.7
Or
2
17 -le
4vt 4
Sk.
W
b
2
V
A
�4?, R' 1�v ' 5� , � /'gam a6° ... , .. ,�1 �. -..� ��� ®� 3i
A 40.
ffo
AdWRIC � k!
1-9%
—.Fool kv
4k
PAR 5(vM)
(20
Ae"
el
4d a
19 N
O
fle)
1"D
IK 7
`tiOv
OU)
v
.10
3R.
—.v -A A90 M
w
LOCAT N A
,. ." T
risme
I�
cIII:]
^
~0, 411-
VAR #87-19
CERTIFICATE OF nnyr., Riley
A
WOODSIDE
40.162
COURT
Denotec iron monument
Description: Lot 2, Block 1,�PICE CREEK
ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, Anoka County, Minn.
1, 3
�10LlUt C®Ltra�rL� 1 hereiry certify that this is trueaand ctareet rept::s:nt;uwn tl .r Sinvey :ri I%i+:J.
the boundaries of the above described land and of th^ bcation of all bmliUng,.
it any, th,:reon and all visible encroachments. if any, trom or on ,:+rQ la,xf
Surveyori ;" . ........
tared S:.nrey,ny • Site Pldnnrnv As surveyed by me this 15A-�L..—day ot---._ZQP—p-,.._— i97�
Cult Engineennt;-
F.Stri lOtr• r1.r ti ri 94 at Boone Av r1i.) ----------------
'Bronk,vn Park. MN 55428 I" = A
Pnone 533 7340 Minn. Reg. No.
COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1987
warehouse/office buildings. He stated normally a variance is granted for
one year, however, because this is a phased development, the petitioner is
requesting the variance extend for a five year period. Mr. Robertson
stated the hardship cited was that a 100 foot setback on 83rd wa `imposed
when the City recently rezoned the land to residential north of�3rd.
Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commisson at their May' 26 meeting
recommended approval of the variances.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated it seems fairly heavy screening is required
along the north edge in anticipation of the effect on ;ijaoent residential
property.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated Raffaele's Restaurant is set back quite
far and this proposed building would be eloser�to the street. He felt
there could be a smaller building in order to r uoe the variance request.
Mayor Nee asked what setback would be require if the City had not rezoned
for the apartment complex. Mr. Robertson st ted it would be 35 feet.
Mr. Qureshi stated he didn't have a problem with Phase I, but could not
anticipate what would happen in the future. He stated, normally, variances
expire in one year.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated i seems to make sense to treat these
buildings separately since they wil be constructed in phases. He stated
as development occurs, there may be a different feeling as to how the
Council wishes the property to dg4elop.
Mr. Maertens stated they are 1 -oking at a long range plan for the total
parcel. He stated if they ca not build a certain amount of square feet,
they probably won't build at/"'-He
stated no variance is needed for the
first phase, but he wanted o know what can be built in the future. He
stated when the adjacent Woperty was rezoned, one of the stipulations was
it not impact on the ind strial property in the area.
Mayor Nee stated he di not recall this being part of the stipulations for
the rezoning.
Y.
H rick also stated he had no recollection of this being
one of the stipulat ons and if it becomes an issue, it would have to be
checked.
Councilman Schne der stated he felt there was a hardship created by the
City's rezonin for the apartment complex. He stated if that property had
not been rezo d, Mr. Maertens would be able to build according to his
proposed pl s.
Councilwom n Jorgenson stated she believed Mr. Maertens statement was
correct a d when the City rezoned the property for the apartment complex,
it warn' to interfere with other uses.
Counc man Goodspeed stated he would have no problem granting the variance
if a entire construction were to occur at this time. He thought perhaps
-11-
COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15, 198T
the variance could be granted for two years.
Mr. Maertens stated if the variance was granted for only two y ars, they
would be penalized for not being able to construct all three .,buildings at
one time. He stated he knows the third building wouldn't be/constructed in
two years, possibly not in five years.
MOTION by Councilman Goodspeed to grant the variancequests, VAR #8T -1T,
for a five year period taking into consideration th�6 hardship imposed on
this property when the Council rezoned property for the apartment complex.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a vo.- ce vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanii
sly
B.
V" AR #87-1�
FEET ET TO
Mr. Robertson, Community Developm 'nt Director, stated this is a request to
reduce the side yard setback fr 10 to 5 feet at 6251 Rainbow Drive in
order to allow an addition to n existing home. He stated the petitioner
'
reviewed several alternativ s and felt this proposal best served their
needs.
Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commission reviewed this request and
recommended approval /,with two stipulations which he outlined.
Mrs. Franta state she and her husband have discussed the proposed addition
and are conYear
ng another alternative. She stated they are concerned
whether the is "legal" because of only the five feet from the lot
line in theof the property.
Mr. Herr ck, City Attorney, stated the house is already existing and
grandf eyed in so there is no legal problem with selling the house.
Franta stated since they are considering alternative plans, the
oil did not have to take action on this variance request.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #8T-19, TO REDUCE THE
REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 14 FEET ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
RICE CREEK ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1531 WOODSIDE
COURT N.E., BY JENNY RILEY:
Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated this is a request to
reduce the rear yard setback from 25 to 14 feet to bring an already
existing three season porch into a legal conforming use. He stated the
person who built this porch did not obtain a building permit and has since
passed away. He stated the property has been sold and the previous owner
or new earner were not aware that this property was not in compliance with
the code.
Mr. Robertson stated a neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Pesch, called and stated
-12-
COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15. 1987
their notice of this variance request was delayed as it went to another
address. He stated the message received was they were against the variance
and planned to attend this meeting.
Ms. Riley, the petitioner, stated this was incorrect and that Mrs. Resch
was going to come to the meeting to support the variance, but was upset
because she didn't receive notification.
Councilman Schneider asked how far the homes on Rice Creek Road are located
to this porch. Ms. Riley stated they were 60 feet as this question was
brought up at the Appeals Commission meeting.
Councilman Schneider stated he didn't want to encourage people to build
without a permit, but under the circumstances, if the porch has been in
existence for seven years with no complaints, there apparently are no
objections.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he would advise the Council to treat
this request as if it were an application to construct the porch and not as
one that is already in existence. He stated he didn't think the Council
should approve the request because someone built it without a permit. He
stated if the Council is comfortable that it would have been approved, if
the request was being made now, this should be the basis for approval. He
stated a significant factor is the house on the lot behind is substantially
removed from the lot line.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to grant variance request, YAR #87-19, to
reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 14 feet at 1521 Woodside Court
for the following reasons: (1) that the existing home is on a partial
cul-de-sac so it is setback further on the property than normal; and (2)
the property to the north is a deep lot and setback considerably and
substantially removed from the lot line. Seconded by Councilman Goodspeed.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, YAR #87-20, TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF A LOT ALLOWED TO BE C(MERED BY THE MAIN
BUILDING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 40% TO 46.5% ON .LOT" L
BLOCK 1. EAST RANCH ESTATES. THE SAME BEING 7770 RANCH ROAD
.E.
L
ON CDMPANY:
Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director stated this is a request for
a variance to increase the percentage of coverage from 40$ to 46.5 to
allow an addition. He stated the pet oner was granted a variance in 1983
to increase their maximum allowab of coverage to 45.5%. He stated the
petitioner is requesting t y be allowed to fill in a very small
indentation. He stated t hardship cited was the additional square
footage is needed to m the plant more efficient.
Mr. Robertson at d the appeals Commission reviewed this request at their
May 26 meeti and recommended approval with three stipulations which he
outlined.
-13-
COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1987
MOTION by Councilman Goodspeed to grant this variance request, 9 R #87-20,
to increase the maximum percentage of a lot allowed to be co ered by the
main building and all accessory buildings from 40% to 4 .5%,. with the
following stipulations: (1) the north parking lot be riped; (2) the
dumpster located on the south side of the building be f ly screened; and
(3) the petitioner work with staff and neighbors on a approved drainage
plan. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a v ce vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimou y.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 48-1987 APPR(M ING A REVISED CONT
CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES:
12.
R
Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director ,;9 stated Super Cycle wishes to
increase collections in the City. He stated ! increasing the frequency of
collections, it increases Super Cycle's bus %ness and doubles the service to
the residents of Fridley for about $100 le 's per month. He stated the City
would be divided into two sections, north and south of Mississippi and
collections north of Mississipi would ton the first and third Fridays and
collections south of Mississippi would, on the second and fourth Fridays.
Mayor Nee stated he felt residents j, ould be in favor of a more frequent
pickup for their recyclables.
Councilman Goodspeed stated he r 'ceived a call this week from a person who
received a letter from her tra hauler blaming the City for the high cost
of garbage disposal. He state her argument was why should she recycle when
the charges are still the a from her trash hauler.
Councilman Schneider state rates would really skyrocket, if there was more
garbage going to the lana ills and the recycling helps to eliminate some of
these items.
Mr. Herrick, City Attney, stated there recently was a letter from a trash
hauler about increa d costs of dumping at the landfills and placing some
restrictions on the/number of cans and lawn bags that would be hauled each
week. He stated phis may be the same letter to which the person who
contacted Counciloan Goodspeed is referring.
MOTION by Counc lman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 48-1987. Seconded by
Councilman Go speed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion ca ried unanimously.
LA
C
Council an Schneider stated it appears the City doesn't have any control
over is project even though MnDOT projects they will be in violation of
the roise standards when this improvement is completed. He stated he felt
VhDOt should work with the residents on the noise problem.
Mrl Flora, Public Works Director, stated the City gave preliminary approval
-14-
Variances are-nbt�filed in Torrens
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF FRIDLEY
In the Matter of a Variance, VAR #87-19
Jenny Riley , Owner
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
VARIANCE
The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley
and was heard on the 15th day of June , 19-17—, on a
petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley'a Zoning Ordinance,
for the following described property: Reduce the rear yard setback frean 25 feet
to 14 feet on Lot 2, Block 1, P,ice Creek Estates Second Addition, the same being
1531 Woodside Court N.E.
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or
reasons:
See City Council minutes of June 15, 1987.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
CITY OF FRIDLEY )
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, Shirley A. Haapala, City Clerk for the City of Fridley with and in for
said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved
in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of
the whole thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand athe City of
Fridley, Minnesota, in t e County of Anoka on the day of
, 19LL .
DRAFTED BY:
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
SHIRLEY A. HAA A, CITY CLE
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be
considered void if not used within that period.
(SEAL)
3
CIiYOF
FRIDLEY
CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Jenny Riley
2501 13th Terrace N.W.
New Brighton, m 55112
June 26, 1987
On June 15, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request
for a Varianoe, VAR #87-19, to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to
14 feet to bring an already existing three season porch into legal conforming
use on Lot 2, Block 1, Rice Creek Estates Second Addition, the same being
1531 Woodside Court N.E. with the following stipulations:
1. The property owner ensure that erosion to the north does not increase
over present levels.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the
Planning Department at 571-3450.
Sincerely,
James L. Robinson
Planning Coordinator
JLP/dm
cc: Michael Serie
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one
coFy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 10, 1987.
i
ncur with action taken
Item #3, May 26, 1987
e rN v 1 0410 •4
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY R�UIREI+:
Section 205.07.03, D, 3a, requires a rear yard setback of not less than
25 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"After my husband was diagnosed with leukemia we decided to build the
porch to avoid bug bites which will result in an infection. He died in
May 18, 1985."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
CIVIC CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 - PHONE (612) 571-3450
S 1.11-vi.� Zn, AA.
Jenny Ril ey
2501 13th Terrace N.W.
New Brighton, M 55112
June 26, 1987
On June 15, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request
for a Variance, VAR #87-19, to reduce the rear yard setback f rom 25 feet to
14 feet to bring an already existing three season porch into legal conforming
use on Lot 2, Block 1, Rice Creek Estates Second Addition, the same being
1531 Woodside Court N.E. with the following stipulations:
1. The property owner ensure that erosion to the north does not increase
over present levels.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the
Planning Department at 571-3450.
Sincerely,
James L. Robinson
Planning Coordinator
JLR/dm
cc: Michael Serie
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one
copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 10, 1987.
Concur with action taken