Loading...
VAR 03.69APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE IN REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY (Applicant to complete items 1, 2, 3) 1. Name. and Address of Applicant_ Louis Thielen 4820 21 Street 2. Legal Description of Property (also general location, such as -."north- east corner of 64th Avenue and 5th Street' or 6415 Fifth Street") Block 3, Lots 11 & 12, Plymouth Addition _ 4820 2! Street 3. Describe the variance requested. (Attach Plat or Survey of Property showing location of proposed building, etc., also adjoining properties and ownership within 200° of said property.) A req-lie,g for a va fiance of Section 45.26 to gedlzce the front vard requirement from 35 feet to 31 feet to permit the construction of an add it ior to the front part of a dwelling ] gcated on Block 3, Lots 11 & 12, Plymouth Addition, the Same Being 4820-22 Street N.E. 4. Comments by administrative official denying original request for building permit or other permit. (To be completed by administrative official. Appropriate ordinances and section of ordinances to be cited.) - 2 - 5. Notice of Hearing appeared in Official Newspaper on the following dates; March 26. 1969 (must be at least once 10 days before meeting -- copy of notice to be attached), 6. Board Members notified of meeting b / �!, C flc Z (List Members, Date Notified, and "Yes" or 1114d' for plans to attend hearing). Name Date Plan to Attend o 7. Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200' notified; By Phone Notified by Name Date or Mail (Initial) Robert Anderson 4856-22 i Philip Jansen 4832-22 7Prmj t Q1 san 4808-2-4: Michael R. Tuzinski 4803 -2nd _Theodore Kelly 4815 -2nd Vernon Koch 4827 -2nd ,veil Rob-iMtte 48_39 -2nd Stanley Partyka 4851 -2nd Ilerbegt Lohse 4803 2 -3 - Chester Peterson 4815 22 Robert Vli eggg A827 2-2 Gladys S. Wicker 4839-22 Gerald Peterson _Vernon .Tackson 4851-2j 4757-22 George Zylka 4780-2L2 8. The Following Board Members and interested parties were present at the Hearing; BOARD MEMBERS 9® opinions and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEALS: Motion by O'Bannon to approve for the following real vis' 1. He lives on a lot where he could add to the front. 2 It is an improvement of his home and thearea 3. There were no objections from the residents. 4 It does not block the view of anybod_PJse - 5. The only way he could add to the house was by a variance. Permit contLuZent upon his brining in a let er from the adaecPn. ern$ Prty owners. 10. For Above Reicamendations 11® Action by City Council and Date; A�ainat Res ndations OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chambers of the City hall at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, April 16, 1969, to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 45.26 to reduce the front yard requirement from 35 feet to 31 feet to permit the construction of an addition to the front part of a dwelling located on Block 3, Lots 11 & 12, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4820-22 Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. Louis Thielen, 4820 -211 -Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota.) Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may. be heard at this meeting. DONALD MITTELSTADT CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLISH: March 26, 1969 1. THE HUMTES OF THE WARD OF APPE!!LS MEETING OF APRIL 162 1969 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Minish at 7:32 P.M. MEMBERS MMENT: Minish, Ahonen, O'Bannon, Harris MEMBERS SENT: Mittelstadt OTHERS PRESENT: Hank Muhich-Building Official MOTION by Ahonen to approve the minutes of April 2, 1969 as written. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there beim no nays, the motion - carried unanimously. Mr. Tom Swanson was present to present -his proposal. The Building Official explained that Mr. Swanson also owns Lot 4 which is zoned correctly for duplexes. Lot 5 is now zoned R-1 which is for single family dwellings. Both lots would have to be used to get enough footage to build a ,duplex. Mr. Swanson was asked why he wanted to build a duplex rather than a single family dwelling. He answered that there is a street running in front and one running in back of the lots and he did not think it was conducive to building a house. Acting Chairman Minish said that with the application there is a petition opposing the Variance signed by quite a number of nearby property owmrs. Mr. Harris asked how large the dwelling was and was told two units on the style of a split level home, but still being a duplex. Mr. Harris also asked for the dimensions of -the dwelling and if there was any provisions for garages. Mr. Swanson said the dimensions were 24' x 40' but there were no provisions for garages at this time. The 24' would be parallel with the street. Airs. George Baker, 409 -57th Place: We have a street in front and in back of us and that dosen't hinder us any. If fact we have two assessments. Our garage is in the back and if we have visitors they park in the front if there is no room in the back. Mr. Swanson asked Mrs. Baker if she had children and she said that she does but they are grown up now but there was no problem with -the two streets when the children were smaller. Mr. David Abrams, 5659 -5th Street: I drove around tonight before the meeting and of all the multiple homes around they are all more or less an eyesore. There are some kitty-corner from me'and there have been cars up on blocks for about a year . I would much rather see the property in single homes. In fact it would be easier, rather than homes being built in there, to build a small park. Of all the houses in our area, the nearest park that is built is at the schoolhouse and one on 51st Street and for all the amll children in the area a small park would go over real good. I am on the corner lot and 1 -would enjoy seeing a stop sign out there because at night it's like a dreg strip. The minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 161 1969 2 Mr. Carl Paulson, 430 -57th Place: I live next door to the particular lot in question. We have Lots 6, 7 and 8 and we have a vacant lot which is buildable. This lot has been split. The lot in question I could have purchased all along if I had any intention of building a double bungalow. What the people in the neighborhood , as well as ourselves, are seeking is to retain the single dwelling concept which we have. If you will look at the zoning map you will notice that the original zoning allowed the present type of zoning and it was not the will of the people that this be done in this manner but this is what the City Council at that time okayed, and there were a lot of areas like that that were okayed but that were detrimental to many people. Here we have R-2 zoning and when the storm came through there were some homes taken out of that area that laid West of this property toward University. Yet, there was one gentleman who,when he rebuilt, he rebuilt himself a three bedroom bungalow and he has acquired the lot next door so he also has a double garage. He is right up against the industrial area owned by a gentleman who's been in there since before the rezoning. When he quite there' his zoning will revert to our regular zoning. Now the point that I want to make is that we want to retain and continue the concept that we have. Let me give you some figures that I received from the Assessor's office. West of this property there are apartment buildings and two double bungalows. One faces 57th Place and the other faces 57th Avenue and both have garages in the front yard. Now we were against that but it was to difficult to stop them after they went to far with it. Here are the figures. At 360 -57th Avenue, the one that faces South, the valuation is $24,540. Now the one on our street and faces 57th Place has a valuation of $25,275• You are aware that when an owner lives on his property he has the homestead for both apartments so he has a credit for both apartments, so we don't get the high tax rate. We just get the home rate. On 7th Street Dave Anderson and Mr. Smith are building a row of houses in the neighborhood of $25,000 and $26,000. So when you compare these figures with the price of these homes we are having to support two families for the same price as we will be supporting one family in a single dwelling. In the terms of taxes for the community we'll not have to subsidize Dave Anderson's houses nearly as much as we would a double, worth about the same amount of money. When we look at the esthetics of the whole thing it does not conform to the houses in this area whatsoever. We are definitely against this thing -.._ and I hope you realize this. Mrs. Lester Peterson, 400 -57th Place: I Live on Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. We would rather prefer a single dwelling than a duplex. It creates all these cars and they don't park off the street and it is almost impossible for us to get out of our driveway at times. We have these 4 units by us and there is always rubbish flying around and they never pick up anything. The Christmas trees are still blowing around. Mrs. Carl Paulson, 430 -57th Place: I think a building like this is detrimental to the community because here you have apartment buildings, Petersene house, a vacant lot and then this duplex. What kind of planning do you call that? It's a crazy quilt. Then they are going to continue around the corner and build another duplex I suppose. I'm against it. It was noted that Lot 3 which is owned by Mary Brown, North Dakota, is not.for sale. Mr. Carl Sorensen, 4615 University Avenue: They made us put 90 foot lots there and here on a lot and one-half. We just platted Adams Street Addition. they want to put a double bungalow . . __ , , r--- Xr.' is: This is just for a point of information. This plot is pretty old ` and when things were first plotted it was done in 40 foot lots and there are even some 25 foot lots in the City of Fridley. In the new concept of plotting and planning that we have now, we like to go to larger lots. It seems that we do have a patch work type of zoning. It might be well for the Planning Commission and Council to take a look at this zoning but it would have to be done at the request of the property owners. Mr. Sorensen: It should be the same all over the City and not have them mixed up. I lost about four lots when we platted 90 foot -lots. Nr. Paulson mentioned that Mr. Sorenson referred to the next item on the agenda. MOTION by 0' on to close the public hearing Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Paulson: Will this go before the Council! Chairmn Minisshs Our minutes are submitted to the Council. This request for a, Special Use Pormit mould go before the Council for the final decision. Mr. Paulson: Do you gentlemen go into the neighborhood to view the neighborhood to get moms idea as to what the people are thinking in terms of upgrading instead. of dowagrading their neighborhood. I am looking at this matter on the b9ais of its worth to the community and to the people who live there so that.they could retain their tranquility and that it will conform aesthetically to the neighborhood. Mr. is% I don't believe the Board of Appeals has sufficient information at this time to grant the request. We do not have the plot plan and we do not have a building plan® According to our charter it says it has to be a hardship.. I of see the hardship without seeing first if the thing could be built on one -lot. If it can't, this is something else. I looked at the arm bat I had no idea of the size of the dwellinglocation on the lot or the location of garages if any. Mr. O' ons I have the same feelings as the members of the audience in that if I had a row of single family dwellings along side of me I would not want a duplex to come in. Now Mr. Swanson has two lots 40 feet wide apiece. He has to have a 13 foot sideyard. You can take 13 feet and 24 feet which add up to 37 feet so he still can build on Lot 4. I would not pass on it though as I think it should go back to the building department. Mr. Paul®ons You cannot build on 40 feet if there is more land available in the old plat. NDTION by Harris to deny the request for a Special Use Permit as.:we.® t gist t% pressent time for the Special Use Ferait as we did not have �e tin # !shies p®rmi$ _ Seconded by b'Bannon 2. i The minutes of the Board of Appeals mestir of April 16, 1 69 Mr. Harris: I want Mr. Swanson to understand this is only a recommendation and that he does have the right to appeal to the Council. I would suggest that when this comes before the Council that he have a building plan and also a plot plan showing elevations and locations on the property. I would also urge that he possibly consider relocating this, if he can, on his property so it will fall into the proper zoning. If he could show a hardship, to do so. Upon a voice vo-te, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Swanson was present to present his request. Mr. Swanson informed the Board that he has a 60 foot by 130 foot lot in R®3 zoning and is requesting a variance of land area so that he can build a duplex. It would mean reducing the lot area requirement from 10,000 square feet to 7500 square feet. There are single family dwellings on both sides, one 000upied by the owner and one rented out. Mr. Harris said there were double bungalows in Blook 2. Mr. Carl Sorensen, 4615 University Avenue: That lot was sold to a man who owned it about two years back. He asked to have a permit for a single dwelling and he was turned down. Now they are asking to put a duplex on the lot and I think it Mould be very unfair. The fellow didn't pay the taxes bause he couldn't build on, it. Mr. Paulson: I think the Board should have the proposed building plans submitted to them by the Inspection Department. The builder would have to submit building plans to the Inspection Department and they in turn would bring the 91=0 to the meeting so that the board would know what is being done. Is this being done for you? ALetUW Chairman Minish: I don't believe legally that it is required by the City to have the plans submitted at that time. Mr. Paulson: A gentleman comes in and makes out an application telling you what he is planning to do. Couldn't the City give you that -application? Hank Muhich informed Mr. Paulson that we.do not force anyone to spend the money to get plans drawn up before they go before the Board for a variance or Special Use Permit. Mr. Paulson gave a short resume of the.history of the area involved. - Mr. Sor en: This particular block (Block 7) is just single dwellings. The blook'to the North has double bungalows. 1 3• o of the Board Of AppealA +, of The criteria which the Board of Appeals is directed to consider was read by the Acting Chairman. Mr. Swanson said the building would be the same plan as in the first request. It would have one-half basement, split level house with garages attached. The setbacks are 5 feet on the garage side and 10 feet on the other side. Mr. Sorensen asked him if the bottom half would be cement and the upper part wood. Mr. Swanson said 'eyes" . NOTION by Ahonen to close the public hearing. Seconded by 0°Bannon. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ahonen to deny the variance for the following reasons; 1> The neighboring lots contain single family dwellings. 2. The lot in question does have sufficient area to permit the construction of a single family dwelling. 3. There was no hardship shown. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion oarried'unanimously. Mr. Louis Thielen was present to present his request. Mr. Thielen: We have a paokage deal of the houses in our block. The contractor who built this house did very little for the house as far as any style is concerned. Every house is square and a couple have some phony peaks. I would like to add to my living room and bedroom. It will cost me about $3,500- I would put a stone front on the house with French style windows. Mr. Thielen showed some pictures to the Board showing what the house would look like with the new front on it. All the neighbors have been notified by word of mouth® Most are in agreement beoause..their houses are identical to mine and fpr me to put on a major improvement only helps their property as far as value is concerned. I haven't decided whether to use brick or stone for the front. MOTION by 0° on that the pubic hearing be closed. Seconded by Ahonen. Upon a voice vote., there being no nays, the motion oarrie4- NOTION by O°Bannon to approve the variance of Section 45.26 to reduce the front yard requirement from 35 feet to 31 feet to permit the construction of an addition to the front part of the dwelling located at 4820-2.1 Street N.E., Fridley, for the following reasons; 4. The minutes of the Board of Ap als me� of April 16, 196 6 1. He lives on a lot where he could add to the front. 2. It is an improvement of his home and the area. 3. There were no objections from the -residents. 4. It does not block the view of anybody else. 5. The only way he could add to the house was by a variance. Mr. Thielen asked if the Board of Appeals would want a letter or statement from the neighbors. Acting Chairman Minish said it would be advisable for him to bring in a letter from the neighbors, that are adjacent to his property. Seconded by Ahonen. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Present were Mr. Jack Lawrence, President of Signorafters, Inc. and Jim Stafford of Signorafters, Inc. and Mrs. Robert Hart of the Sunliner Motel. Mr. Lawrence: What we would like is to have a variance of the Ordinance to allow more then 12 square feet of sign area and more than 6 feet in height. This motel has to advertise on the highway. We would like to remove the existing sign which is very close to 141 square feet and install a sign which is 150 square feet. A drawing of the new sign was presented to the Board to examine. You have to have a sign of that size to tell people ahead of time as they are coming to a dip in the grade of the road. It would attract the attention of the customers who are coming in from the North, on the other side of the highway. The present sign was reconverted from the old one and just'remodified. It is a 8' x 121 oval sign, and you can't read the word motel from across the road. The lights on the new sign will be similar to Minnie Pearls sign, not on or off or flashing,but just a waterfall effect which is on continually with a changeable panel below. The old sign would be removed completely. Mrs. Robert Hart, 6881 Highway #65: We are situated so that Suburban Engineering comes out in front of the motel. The people coming in do not even see the sign, The men from Onan's can't find the motel coming from the South toward evening. We would like to build a first class motel and make it quite elaborate in time. I think if we are to put money into the sign now it should be a good sign and not something we would have to do over again. There are a lot of trees by the creek and they shut off the view of the sign from the North. The.Building Official read the part of the City Code relating to flashing signs. Acting Chairman Minish said the Ordinance would not permit the waterfall effect. Mr. Lawrence said he thought they could come up with a compromise.snd work it out with the.Council. The sign is 150 square feet which includes 6" of blue sky between each structure. _3 1 Thi aminutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 16A 996 Mr. Lawrence reminded them the present sign is 142 square feet. Mr. Ahonen commented that he goes by the motel everyday and he has never seen the sign. Mr. O'Bannon said it lights up the area but you can't read it. The sign was composed of the lights at the top, waterfall effect, the word "Motel" and a changeable panel which could be used as a community billboard. Mr: Lawrence said the changeable panel could be deleted. MOTION by Ahonen to close the public hearing. Seconded by O'Bannon. Upon ,& voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lawrence said that in all fairness, he would not waste his time having this sign drawn up and presented for Mrs. Hart if he did not feel this is their only source of advertising. Ac ing.Chairman Minish said the Board does not intend to prohibit signs, just regulate them. Mr. Stafford said the footage of the signs that are up in the air is tremendous. But when you are a half a mile away a six foot man would look very small and when an exit is missed no one wants to turn around and go back. MOTION by Ahonen to approve the request -of the variance in consideration of the fact that the motel business does depend a great deal upon a sign for its advertisement and they are only using one sign. Also for the following reasons; 1. A case of hardship is involved because the motel is set so far back from the highway. 2. The view of the building is out off by the structure immediately to the Scuth and to the North by a dip in the road at Rice Creek. 3. Competition with Target's Warehouse. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, O'Bannon abstaining, the motion carried. AWOURIEW: Acting Chairman Minish adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. Respeot-finly submitted, HAZEL 0' MIAN Acting Seoretary (Official Publication( OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY —PUBLIC HEARING BEFOWTHE APP PO WHOM ITB cON ERNS rwu at Vau,pm. on Wednesday; April 16. 1966,. to consider file following (natter: A request for a variance of Section 45.26 to reduce the front yard requirement from 25 feet to 31 'feet, to permit the: construction of an9 addition to the front part of a dwellingp located an Block 3; Lots It & 12, P. oath Addition, the same being H2 2% Street NX. Fridley. Minnesota. Request by Mr.. Louis Thielen. 462 - 24¢ .Street N.E.. Fridley, bTinnesota, i Anyone desiring to be heard with refer. .' en Ito the above -matter may be heard at tWs meeting. DONALD MIITELSTADT March 26, 1969, BTTerd of AppealsI --- — _t d OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS e TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, April 16, 1969, to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 45.26 to reduce the front yard requirement from 35 feet to 31 feet to permit the construction of an addition to the front part of a dwelling located on Block 3, Lots 11 & 12 Plymouth Addition, the same being 4820-2.2 Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. Louis Thielen, 4820-22 Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota.) Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. DONALD MITTELSTADT CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLISH: March 26, 1969 45.261 i 45.251. R-3 Districts: Same as in R-1 and R-2 Districts provided that 1 additional.foot of depth of rear yard is re- _ quired for each 2 feet or portion thereof of building height in excess of 35 feet. 45.252. C-1 Districts: A rear yard is required only for a building containing any dwelling units and on any lot, the rear or side line of which adjoins any R-1, R-2, R-3 or C -IS District and the depth shall be not less than 25 feet. 45.253. C-2, M-1, M-2 Districts: Same as in C-1 Districts provided that 1 additional foot of depth of rear yard is re- quired for each 4 feet or portion thereof of building height in excess of 35 feet. 45.254. REAR YARD DEPTH: WITH ALLEY ADJOINING: In com- puting the depth of a rear yard for any building where the rear line of the lot adjoins an alley, 1/2 of the width of such alley may be included as rear yard depth provided that the rear yard depth actually .on the lot shall be not less than 20 feet in any dwelling district and not less than 10 feetinany other district 45.26. R-1 R-2, R-3 and C-1 Districts: A front yard FRONT YARDS REQUIRED with a depth of not less than 35 feet is required. The following standards shall apply concerning the elevation of the ground at the building setback line: a. The ground grade designated at the foundation wall shall be considered the "finished ground grade". b. The minimum elevation of finished ground grade is to be not less than 1/4 inch per horizontal foot of setback measured from centerline of street and above established street centerline finish grade. c. The maximum elevation of the finish ground grade to be not more than 48 inches above the estab- lished street centerline finish grade. d. A different elevation may be established upon application therefor for approval by the City Engineer's Office of the City if such different elevation is found not to adversely affect surface drainage to or from adjoining property. (Ref. 266) 45.261. C-2, M-1, M-2 Districts: None, unless a block is partly in a C-2, M-1, M-2 District and partly in another dis- trict, in which case the front yard depth required in such other district shah apply along .its entire length., The re- quirements of the elevation of the ground at the building set- back line are the same as are provided in Section 45.26. 165 { . i. 114 CORNER SEC. 26 ii O -t-7 tM - . -. 4 2.9 AVE. Id Z7 4f 16 f 4C 24 14 7 ?2 hl zi El 2.P P 4f 17 ""A Af Zq 4 2.9 AVE. Id 4C 24 hl 2.P P w 17 Af 4 AVE. Id 2.P P w z Zq 21 27 27 17 4 ze 5* Zj, 2r IS 244 21 o� 4 2 .7 10 1 7 22 Al Ile- IA' C, 17 17 Ar LLI L, —I,- - —I 47TH. AV E. N.E. 7 27 N. TO Fridley Sm Newsp"i-.' N,Pr-- q t._v. s•rs y-�a qui p Ma PLEASE REPLY TO —0 R FOLD — DATE rz SIGNED z. L SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY. EM.Tml: M" 26, 1969 PLEASE REPLY TO —0 R FOLD — DATE rz SIGNED z. L SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY.