VAR 86-22'Dane to -2- ar l
CIVIC CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 - PHONE (612) 571-3450
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
On August 26, 1986 , the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved
your request for a variance, VAR #86-22, by Kenneth Ochocki, pursuant
to Chapter 205.07.3, D, 2c, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side
yard setback on a street side of a corner lot from seventeen and one-half
(17.5) feet to six (6) feet to allow the construction of additional living
space on part of Lot 29, Block 6, and Lot 30, Block 6, Plymouth Addition,
the same being -4757 = 2nd.Street -N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55421, with the
following stipulations
1. The existing driveway must be hard surface.
If the work has not commenced within one (1) year after granting this variance
then the variance shall become null and void.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning
Department at 571-3450.
inc ly,
ark
Chief Building Official
DC/ln
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one
copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by September 8, 1986
1, �3 c4,'4',Z , concur with the action taken.
00'-
CffOF
MDLLY
CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
On August 26, 1986 the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved
your request for a variance, VAR #86-22, by Kenneth Ochocki, pursuant
to Chanter 205.07.3, D. 2c, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side
yard setback on a street side of a corner lot from seventeen and one-half
(17.5) feet to six (6) feet to allow the construction of additional living
space on part of Lot 29, Block 6, and Lot 30, Block 6, Plymouth Addition,
the same being,4757 -- Znd.Street-N.E., Fridley, Rinnesota, 55421, with the
following stipulation:
1. The existing driveway must be hard surface.
If the work has not commenced within one (1) year after granting this variance
then the variance shall become null and void.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning
Department at 571-3450.
ince ly,
ark
Chief Building Official
DC/ln
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one
copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by September 8, 1986
I, - , concur with the action taken.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS -COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the August 26, 1986, Appeals Commission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Donald Betzold, Alex Barna, Diane Savage
Members Absent: Jerry Sherek
Others Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley
fir. & Mrs. Kenneth Ochocki, 4757 - 2nd St. N.E.
Mr. & firs. Richard Tkaczik, 12323 Gladiola St. N.E.
APPROVAL OF JULY 29, 1986, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE THE JULY 29, 1986,
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #86-22, BY KENNETH OCHOCKI,
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.3,'D, 2c OF THE,FRIDLEYCITY CODE TO REDUCE
THE SIDE YARD SE S D
ONE-HALF E 6 AL
LIVING SPACE ON PART OF .L T .29, .B LOCK .6, ND T 0 0, K 6, PLYMO
APRITV - - - _--_j FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 421) .
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
4757 - 2nd Street N.E.
VAR #86-22
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07.3, D, 2c requires a side yard width on a street side of
a corner lot of not less than 17.6 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree
of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1986 PAGE 2
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"The house is set in the middle of the lot. We need additional living
space and this is the least expensive addition. We cannot add a second
floor because a family member cannot climb stairs."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The boulevard width on 48th Avenue is 14.5 feet. Therefore, the proposed
addition would be 20.5 feet from the street curb.
Of the six lots along the south side of 48th Avenue, the two to the west
are 36 feet from the curb, the one directly to the east is 29 feet, and
the two between 2 1/2 and 3rd Streets are 35 feet. The petitioner could
add on lessor expand out the back without need for a variance.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, Staff recommend that they
be required to hard surface their existing driveway.
Mr. Clark showed the Commissioners an aerial photo of the property and a photo
of the existing house. He stated there were no houses facing 48th Ave. All
the houses face north/south streets so there would not be any encroachment into
anyone's front yard.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner wanted to add onto the north side of the house
which would put it closer to the existing curb.
Mr. Kenneth Ochocki stated he wanted to add a couple of bedrooms,and convert
part of an existing bedroom into living room space. He showed the Commissioners
the layout of the existing house and stated it would be very difficult to build
onto the back of the house because the bathroom would be located in the middle.
There would be considerable added cost to move the plumbing. He estimated it
would double their cost to move the bathroom. He stated the addition would not
obstruct the view from the street any more than it did now because there was
an existing row of lilac bushes along the north side.
Mr.Barna stated that with the proposed addition, the petitioner would basically
have to cut a doorway where there was presently a window. If he were to add
to the back, the petitioner would have to almost gut the north half of the
existing house, cut through the support wall at the back of the house, and move
all the plumbing and possibly the power and gas entrance.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO CLOSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETiOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Barna stated the Appeals Commission has granted other variances on corner
lots, not in just this area, but in other areas as well, with less side yard
than this request. He did not think the addition would be encroaching into
the drive line of sight. There was no front yard line of sight encroachment
because all the houses faced north/south streets. The street visibility was
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING,'AUGUST 26, 1986 PAGE 3
was already blocked by lilac bushes. He could see a hardship because of
construction restraints. It was much easier to continue the line of the
existing house than to completely gut out approx. one-third of the house,
move rooms, plumbing, possibly underground sewer. The most sensible addition
would be to the north, and it would increase the square footage of a small
house and bring the house up to a more average square footage and make the
house a more uniform and more resaleable structure.
Ms. Savage stated she agreed. She had looked at the property and it wasn't
visible from 48th Ave. The part of the property that was really visible was
the front where all the houses were setback approx. the same distance. She
could understand building onto the north side was more feasible. This did
appear to be a small house and apparently there was the need for expansion.
She thought the hardship had been stated, and the addition would certainly
not reduce the line of sight encroachment. She had no objection to the
variance as requested.
Mr. Betzold also agreed. He stated they do not like to encourage people
to expand to the street, but this was a unique situation due to the fact that
it was a very small house that was built in the very center of the lot. The
proposed addition as presented by the petitioner did seem to be the most
feasible way of adding onto the house.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REVUEST,
VAR #86-22, BY KENNETH OCHOCKI, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.3, D, 2c OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A STREET SIDE OF A
CORNER LOT FROM SEVENTEEN AND ONE-HALF (17.5) FEET TO SIX (6) FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON PART OF LOT 29, BLOCK 6, AND
LOT 30, BLOCK, PLYMOUTH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 4757 - 2ND STREET N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY BE
HARD -SURFACED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. REAPPROVAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR J86-23, BY RICHARD TKACZIK, PURSUANT
CHAPTERTO 205.07.3. D, I OF THE FRIDLEYI FR Y RD
SFTRACK FROM THTRTY-FTVF Ml FFFT TO TWFNTY-F1VF 75FFFT TO.ALLOW THE i
MOTION BY MR.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VC
HEARING OPEN AT 7.-50 P.M.
BY MS. SAVAGE, TO 0F.,XY-THE PUBLIC HEARING.
, Ce°�IIR `70ff BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
ISSION MEETING. AUGUST 26. 1
irperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
5201 Pierce Street N.E.
VAR #86-23
PAGE 4
A. PUB' PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 05.07.3, D, 1 requires a front yard with a dept of not less
than thi -five (35) feet.
Public purpo a served by this requirement is to alipo for off-street
parking witho%intthe
croaching on the public right of ay and also for
aesthetic con
ation to reduce the building ne of sight"
encroachment neighbor's front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
The petitioner cannotN
d in the rear cause there is a "drop in the
back of the lot".
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVI
This lot was one of four lots hich variances were granted in April
1979. This lot, as well as th of to the north, were granted 25 foot
front yard setbacks. The nex on was granted a 30 foot setback, while
the most northerly of the h r was llowed a 33 foot setback. The lot
to the southwest was recen y grante ,a 15 foot setback.
If the Appeals Commissi n moves to apprbXp this request, Staff has
no stipulations to re ommend.
Mr. Clark showed the issioners a zoning map ° owing the location of the
property. He stated variance was approved for is lot in 1979, but
because of the tim element, that variance had expi ed.
Mr. Richard Tkayfik stated that because of the severe op in the back of
tte lot, it was not feasible to build without the varian There were lots
next to this hat were set back even less than 25 feet.
Mr. Betzo d stated that in the April 24, 1979, Appeals Commi on minutes,
there wo quite a bit of discussion about landfill and the co of fill.
Was i even feasible to fill this lot?
Mr kaczik stated that a considerable amount of fill would have t be hauled
i and it would create nothing but financial problems for both hims if as
he builder and the buyer of the property. Also, there was a lot of getation
that would be destroyed by fill.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF FRIDLEY
In the Matter of a Variance, VAR #86-22
APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
VARIANCE
Kenneth Ochocki , Owner
The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of
Fridley and was heard on the 26 day of August , 19 8L.._1
on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning
Ordinance, for the following described property:
To reduce the side yard setback on a street side of a corner lot from 17.5. feet
to 6 feet to allow the construction of additional living space on part of Lot
29, Block 6, and Lot 30, Block 6, Plymouth Addition, the saw Ding 4757 - 2nd
Street N.E.
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or
reasons:
See Appeals Comission Minutes of August 26, 1986; stipulation that the existing
driveway be hard -surfaced.
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 at the City of
Frid , Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the, day of
19 0
DRAFTED BY:
City of Fridley
61431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 551432
SHIRLEY A. 9AAPALA, Clft CLERK
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval
considered void if not used within that period. - 'm'' '✓ ,9�.tir,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the August 26, 1986, Appeals Commission`'meetinq to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Menbers Present: Donald Betzold, Alex Barna, Diane Savage
Menbers Absent: Jerry Sherek
Others Present: Darrel'Clark, City -',66f Fridley
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Ochocki, 4757 - 2nd St. N.E.
Mr. & Mrs..,;Rchard Tkaczik, 12323 Gladiola St. N.E.
APPROVAL OF JULY 29, 1'486, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 11R., -BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE TNF. JULY 29, 1986,
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON;A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #86-22, BY KENNETH OCHOCKI,
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.3, D, 2cOF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODS Tn REDUCE
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER LOT FROM SEVENTEEN AND
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
4757 - 2nd Street N.E.
VAR #.86-22
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07.3, D, 2c requires a side yard width on a street side of
a corner lot of not less than 17.5 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree
of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment
into the neighbor's front yard.
W
APPEALS COMMISSION 11EETING, AUGUST 26, 1986 PAGE 2
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"The house is set in the middle of the lot. We need additional living
space and this is the least expensive addition. We cannot add a second
floor because a family member cannot climb stairs."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The boulevard width on 48th Avenue is 14.5 feet. Therefore, the proposed
addition would be 20.5 feet from the street curb.
Of the six lots along the south side of 48th Avenue, the two to the west
are 36 feet from the curb, the one directly to the east is 29 feet, and
the two between 2 1/2 and 3rd Streets are 35 feet. The petitioner could
add on less or expand out the back without need for a variance.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, Staff recommend that they
be required to hard surface their existing driveway.
Mr. Clark showed the Commissioners an aerial photo of the property and a photo
of the existing house. He stated there were no houses facing 48th Ave. All
the houses face north/south streets so there would not be any encroachment into
anyone's front yard.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner wanted to add onto the north side of the house
which would put it closer to the existing curb.
Mr. Kenneth Ochocki stated he wanted to add a couple of bedrooms and convert
part of an existing bedroom into living room space. He showed the Commissioners
the layout of the existing house and stated it would be very difficult to build
onto the back of the house because the bathroom would be located in the middle.
There would be considerable added cost to move the plumbing. He estimated it
would double their cost to move the bathroom. He stated the addition would not
obstruct the view from the street any more than it did now because there was
an existing row of lilac bushes along the north side.
Mr.Barna stated that with the proposed addition, the petitioner would basically
have to cut a doorway where there was presently a window. If he were to add
to the back, the petitioner would have to almost gut the north half of the
existing house, cut through the support wall at the back of the house, and move
all the plumbing and possibly the power and gas entrance.
MOTION BY MR. BARRA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Barna stated the Appeals Commission has granted other variances on corner
lots, not in just this area, but in other areas as well, with less side yard
than this request. He did not think the addition would be encroaching into
the drive line of sight. There was no front yard line of sight encroachment
because all the houses faced north/south streets. The street visibility was
V
APPEALS COM14ISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1986 - PAGE 3
was already blocked by lilac bushes. He could see a hardship because of
construction restraints. It was much easier to continue the line of the
existing house than to completely gut out approx. one-third of the house,
move rooms, plumbing, possibly underground sewer. The most sensible addition
s:. would be to the north, and it would increase the square footage of a small
house and bring .the house up to a more average square footage and make the
house a more uniform and more resaleable structure.
Ms. Savage stated she agreed. She had looked at the property and it wasn't
visible from 48th Ave. The part of the property that was really visible was
the front where all the houses were setback approx. the same distance. She
could understand building onto the north side was more feasible. This did
appear to be a small house and apparently there was the need for expansion.
She thought the hardship had been stated, and the addition would certainly
not reduce the line of sight encroachment. She had no objection to the
variance as requested.
Mr. Betzold also agreed. He stated they do not like to encourage people
to expand to the street, but this was a unique situation due to the fact that
it was a very small house that was built in the very center of the lot. The
proposed addition as presented by the petitioner did seem to be the most
feasible way of adding onto the house.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST,
VAR #86-22, BY KENNETH OCHOCKI, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.3, D, 2c OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A STREET SIDE OF A
CORNER LOT FROM SEVENTEEN AND ONE-HALF (I7.5) FEET TO SIX (6) FEET TO ALWT,7
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON PART OF LOT 29, BLOCK 6, AND
LOT 30, BLOCK, PLYMOUTH ADDITION, THF. SAME BEING 4757 - 2ND STREET N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY BE
HARD -SURFACED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. REAPPROVAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #86-23, BY RICHARD TYACZ K' PURSUANT
MOTION BY MR. BARNA,f=SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A V0_7CCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
H-SARbiG OPEN AT 7:50 P.M.
X46441
Nurnerical,"
Grantor
Grantee �
Recorded
Checked
Marin_
Tr. Index '
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF ANOKA
I hereby certify that the within instru-
Ment was filed in this office for record
p(. o'clock
M., and was duly recorded
Depay