Loading...
VAR 10.78.I✓ ��' �� L S ��0 5r - ®F �° SUBJECT APPLICATION TO APPEALS COMMISSION onCITY mariNmI301TA (612) 571-3450 eporlmcnt rvtston, Number f2ev u8e Approved by Dat® 910-F23 2 1 of 2 800 7-7.7-79� •PUBLIC WORKS/CODs. ENFORCEMENT NameAddress �g� �or4ST-rZ%3e-T(®t+1 23 LZoocx cSr i7�. Phone 1 UJE-STf-JCO I�Evr9 I�j'�tto ttT0.4 M.1, SSf1 z IeW or Addn�t ,l 90 Legal Lot No. Block No7.a_HAyKt1'T0 as �� H4 C1 '41j(CS4je_ Descri tion 4-7 110 p rTto�1 Variance Requests): (attach plat or survey of property showing bui ding, variances, etc., where applicable) c� TSE S&JAg4- FOlSTAGC Fe aA14 IJJrJ 6/At.-OW l V_C,MA t, f)1 00o-- I.o'r k'3 0 2, C i LoT List specific hardship(s) which requires the variance(s) r 'rtf5 �_oT (4A-5 tL JuS t- 14AO duct -1 A 0A1C%AN"f Pv2c_HAs CD TH€ I.oT ei � O v � L E t-1 t: 1, S E E K � 4J to Tt;.► �- � yta Date l#JFortrKty 'r% Ja+vttACJLZ t4A,7 E%-e%rzru•, Arjo To +pptj Q(— 22-F1O (Meeting Date FeeReceipt No. Signature ry Comments & Reconmendations b�� the Appeals Commission�-- City Council Action and Date ornnt tlx: SUS""" ` APPLICATION TO APPEALS COMMISSION (Staff Report) Ifi eporlmenl TiMsiort Dumberiev ugo Approved by PUBLIC WORKS/CODE ENFORCEMENT 910-F23 2 2 of 2 800 Dot® t 7-17-79' Staff Comments: i Board members notified of meeting by 9-9-80 List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name 9 -RA To Attend a Virginia Schnabel Pat Gabel Alex Barna Jim Plemel' Dick Kemper Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: NN By Whom Charles Westling, Westing Construction 3 Pho e o ail Natified06LIC- ZbZJ0o cres r. New Brighton 55112 Sacred Heart of Jesus Polish Catholic Church Und Avenue N.E. Mpls 55418 Bryant -Franklin Corp. 7921 Beech Street N.E. ° Richard Traczik-12315 Gladiola N.W. Coon RapidsMN Mr. & Mrs. Harlan King 5430 5th Street N.E. M/M Steven Smith -5423 4th Street N.E. Joseph Vaseck�&, 5427 4th Street N.E. Mrs. Luray Krumwiede, 5435 4th Street N.E. M/M Mike O'Bannon-5298 Fillmore St. N.E. 55421 Curtis Bostrom 5662 Regis Trail N.E. Duane & Joan Huie-4031 Bethel Drive Apt 11 " , —G I"In 55112 For Internal use• City of Fridley APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1980 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the Appeals Commission meeting of Octobex 14, 1980 to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Patricia Gabel, Alex Barna, Dick Kemper Members Absent: Jim Plemel APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: 'SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Chairwoman Schnabel made one correction under OTHER BUSINESS at the end of Line 4 to read "7500" instead of "75." MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to approve the Appeals -Commission minutes of September 30, 1980 as written and corrected. UPON.A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN-SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 -OF THE FRIDLEY CITY. CODE, TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR A DOUBLE BUNGALOW FROM 10,000 SQUARE YU�,FT TO 7,312 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE BUNGALOW .ON_THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 6, AND ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK 11, HWIIL-TON'S ADDITION' TO MECHANICSVILLE, THE SAME BEING 5430-32 5TH STREET N.E. WHEN THIS DOUBLE BUNGALOW IS_CONSTRUCfED, THE DWELLING NOW ADDRESSED AS 5430 5TH STREET WILL BE ADDRESSED'AS 5436 5TH STREET N.E. (Request by Chuck Westling, of Westlin Construction, 2523 Woodcrest Drive, New Brighton, MN 55112). Charles V. Westling, 2523 Woodcrest Drive, New Brighton, MN, was present. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mrs. Gabel to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5430-32 5th Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REPUIREMENT: Section 205.063, 111, requires a lot area of not less than.10,000 square.feet for a two family dwoiling unit. Public purpose served by this requir .ement is to avoid the condition of overcrowding in a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP "This lot had previously been granted such a variance. I purchased the lot expecting to build a double - when seeking the permit I was informed that the variance had expired and that I had to reapply." IL - APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - October 14, 1980 Page 2 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The Appeals Commission on December 6, 1978 and City Council on January 8, 1979 approved variances for lot area and a side yard setback to allow the construction of a two family dwelling on this Property with the stipulation that the structure be setback 16.1 feet from the north property line to provide 20 feet between adjacent living areas. The present applicant has a building plan that needs or.?y the lot area variance to allow construction, ,and the structure ha.r been posi..: ored 18 feet fro+c. use north property line. The location does lend itself to the construction of a two family dwelling since the property is properly zoned and much of the surrounding area is presently occupied by multiple dwellings. There is no additional land available to add to this property is meet the lot area requirement. Mr. Westling showed the Commission members blueprints of the proposed side-by-side double bungalow. He said the windows will be triple glazed, there will be a basement, garage and a storage area on the side. The building will be 52 feet long and will meet front and rear setback requirements. He said there will be two bedrooms upstairs with room for a third bedroom downstairs. He said he will not live in the building but wants to keep it and will sell it if he cannot get financing. He further said the building will be trimmed in oak, with oak doors and cabinets and ceramic baths. Mr. Westling asked if the side yard setbacks would allow him to put up a littledpck. Chairwoman Schnabel said'he would be able to put up a deck and further stated that most of the concerns with the previous requests have been answered or are no longer applicable. She also stated that she talked with Mr. Clark who said the quality of Westling Construction is very good and he did not see any problems with this request. Chairwoman Schnabel further stated that this building would be compatible with the neighborhood and the many multiple dwellings in that area. She also reminded Mr. Westling that the variance is only good for a year. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request to reduce the square footage requirement for a double bungalow from 10,000 square feet to 7,812 square feet, to allow the construction of a double bungalow on the south half of Lot 6, and all of Lot 7, Block 11, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, the same being 5430-32 5th Street N.E. When this double bungalow is constructed, the dwelling now addressed at 5430 5th Street N.E. will be addressed as 5436 5th Street N.E., Fridley, MN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gavel to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1980 ADJOURNED AT 7:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deb Niznik, Recording Secretary w Lots 4.5, 6 & 7, Block 11 Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville Anoka County, Minnesota ' 11 30 t4Q7 F I L T DAk,7- CORP.. ,L�N�,DEVELOIFMENT KUR, SUR E' Nq,1140. 4W2 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 55421 j KM=V CMMTIFV THAT THIM CURVKV. PLAN, 094 INKPORT WAS PO ARM OV Mx an UND" my 01pxQT pupwou $ON AND THAT I AN A DULY FMCIDV=30 LAND VUnVXV0M VNVXR -r"19 MIM 9V THP; OT^TX OF "I""MOTA. DATE r.A.-r,.SCALE IPV r4 I -OT rTEGISTRATION NO, 5332P...- IRON MONUMENT :610.GG A 43.0 dAz� 0, 0 I N, Cu' F w Lots 4.5, 6 & 7, Block 11 Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville Anoka County, Minnesota ' 11 30 t4Q7 F I Lv CITY OF FI -417 -ILL GYI SUBJECT i CT B- I MINNESOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION Rr--VIEW -9 W. Liep S10% hev ruga Appioved by Dole COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST RE -1 LFRIM TO PLAIVNIrQG 11 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 56432 TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 October 3, 1980 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ; hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the iuct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers iue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 14, )liowing matter: City of Fridley at 6431 Univer- 1980, in regard Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the square footage requirement for a double bungalow from 10,000 square feet to 7,812 square feet, to allow the construction of a double bungalow on the South half of Lot 6,*and all of Lot 7, Block 11, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, the same being 5430-32 5th Street N.E. When this double bungalow is constructed, the dwelling now addressed as 5430 5th Street will be addressed as "5436 5th Street N.E. Nc w"i c i s hereby given � f: at all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above ti-a>e unci place. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL Cy I A I P.1;-)1,,AN APPEALS COHMIISSION Item #1 October 14, 1980 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5430-32 5th Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.063, 1A, requires a lot area of not less than 10,000 square feet for a two family dwelling unit. Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of overcrowding in a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP "This lot had previously been granted such a variance. I purchased the lot expecting to build a double - when seeking the permit I was informed that the variance had expired and that I had to reapply." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The Appeals Commission on December 6, 1978 and City Council on January 8, 1979 approved variances for lot area and a side yard setback to allow the construction of a two family dwelling on this property with the stipulation that the structure be setback 16.1 feet from the north property line to provide 20 feet between adjacent living areas. The present applicant has a building plan that needs only the lot area variance to allow construction, and the structure has been positioned 18 feet from the north property line. The location does lend itself to the construction of a two family dwelling since the property is properly zoned and much of the surrounding area is presently occupied by multiple dwellings. There is no additional land available to add to this property is meet the lot area requirement. Item #1 October 14, 1980 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5430-32 5th Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REgUIREMENT: Section 205.063, lA, requires a lot area of not less than 10,000 square feet for a two family dwelling unit. Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of overcrowding in a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP "Thais lot had previously been granted such a variance. I purchased the lot expecting to build a double - when seeking the permit I was informed that the variance had expired and that I had to reapply." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The Appeals Commission on December 6, 1978 and City Council on January 8, 1979 approved variances for lot area and a side yard setback to allow the construction of a two family dwelling on this property with the stipulation that the structure be setback 16.1 feet from the north property line to provide 20 feet between adjacent living areas. The present applicant has a building plan that needs only the lot area Variance to allow construction, and the structure has been positioned 18 feet from the north property line. The location does lend itself to the construction of a two family dwelling since the property is properly zoned and much of the surrounding area is presently occupied by multiple dwellings. There is no additional land available to add to this property is meet the lot area requirement. I MM. PLANNING ComISSIm ,, IrJG, DECE14PFR 6, 1978 - _ _PAGE 6 Mr. Langenfeld stated that he would like to commend Mr. Hanson for his presentation, and felt that if his business was as good as hie presentation, he would be an asset to the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. v 4. LOT SPLIT Rr0U1;.ST, L.S. PT8-05 BY DAN -LAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Split off the South half of Lot , and add it to Lot '(, all in Block 1, am Iiilton' s Addition Le, to Mechanicsville, for the purpose of moving a double bungalow on the combined area, located just south of 5430 5th Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated that this was located on 5th Street just south of the property they recently approved for a tri -plea. When that request went to Council last Monday, they informed Council that they had picked up Lot 41 as recommended by Planning. This lot split would be on Lot 6 for the developrre nt of a duplex. The duplex would be built south of the single family house which was on Lot 5 and Lot 6. With this lot split; there was a variance going through presently. The variance would be on the Appeals Commission agenda on December 26. They would need a variance on lot area and also a variance for setback distance from the single family house. If they approved the lot split at this time, it could be subject to the variance approval by the Board of Appeals. The reason it was coming up at two different time like this was that they received an attorneys determination on the lot split, and his determination was that on lot splits, variances should be separate because variances require public hearings and lot splits do not. Mr. Harris asked what the situation was with the garage on Lot 5. Mr. Boardman stated that the garage was being moved to the back of Lot 5 and would be totaly on Lot 5. The split would be right down the middle of Lot 6. Mr. Harris asked if those were all 40 foot lots. Mr. Boardman stated they were and the split would give them two 60 foot building sites, at 100 feet deep. Mr. Harlan King, 5430 5th Street N.E., dame forward and stated he lives in the single house. fir. King stated that there was a double bungalow in Minneapolis that must be moved because of a highway, and they would like to buy it and move it in, but they have not yet purchased it and were not sure they could get it. If they could not purchase this particular duplex, they would build a double bungalow on the lot. Mr. Harris stated if they did move the double bungalow in, upon moving it in, they would have to meet all the requirements of the City Code, and should also check into the requirements of the Energy Code, and make sure it meets the Energy Code. Mr. Boardman stated that the City's inspector would have to look at it before they moved it in and also after they moved it in. Mr. Harris stated he brought this up because it could effect the negotiations concerning the purchase of the double bungalow. fe . PLAWNG COMISSION MEETING,, DECEMBER 6, 1978 PAGE 7 Mr. Dan Couture, 2518 Jackson Street N.E., asked if the lot split were approved and they could not purchase the double bungalow, and decided to build with the same dimensions and all, would it be a problem. Mr. Harris stated it would not if they had the variances and met them. Mr. Boardman stated this area was zoned R-3, so the zoning was correct and pointed out that the structure surrounding this property was four-plexes and multiple family units. Mr. Couture pointed out that they had the only front driveway in the block, and when the garage gets turned around, they would be using the alley, so there would then be no driveways in the front. Mr. Boardman asked how old the structure was that they were planning to move in. Mr. Couture stated it was 12 years old and was stucco with a brick front. Mr. Harris asked if they would need any easements. Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Clyde, and as far as he knew, they needed no easements. Ms. Schnabel stated that she felt this proposal would be very compatible with the neighborhood. The only single family dwelling belonged to the petitioner, and the other structures were multiple family units. In terms of visual impact, a double bungalow would be goad on that lot. MOTION by Nx. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to recommend to Council approval of the Lot Split request, L.S. #78-05, by Dan -Lan Development Corporation: Split off the South half of Lot 6, and add i*t ].1 to Lot 7, all in Block , Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, for the purpose of moving a double bungalow on the combined area, lo- cated just sough of 5430 5th Street N.E. with the stipulation that the variance requests are approved by the Board of Appeals, and also the stipulation that the building meets the City of Fridley's Building and Energy Codes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CONTINUED: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: Mr. Storla noted that this item had been tabled. 6. SULTAhT PROPOSALS FOR DOUNTOWN REVITALISATION: MIDWEST P G AND RESEARCH, INC, DEVELO OPICEPT CORPORATION, LEON NiADSEN, PROFES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Mr. Boardman stated that7*o�cil would prob lybe selecting a consultant at their December 18th meeting, ah r t ity Manageres office was in the process of an extensive review of tpos Mr. Harris asked if they d received any response fr a local business community or the Chamber of Co rce regarding this proposal. Mr. Boardman aced he had not heard any response as yet, and stated t at the meeting where th onsultants made their proposals, about 70% of the landowners we represented and ad talked to some of them after the meeting and Fred Levi was very in �ted in proposals. &0 PLANNING COMMISSION MMING, DECEMBER 61 1978 - PAGE . k\ Peterson stated that in talking to businessmen in the community who were resident taNstant ers, it had been indicated to him that they felt the big push for hiring a cowas because the Staff and professionals in City government were looking for justi4,cation for plans that they would like to take place in downtown Fridl Mr. Boar�pan stated that they had received a letter from the Chamber of mmerce asking them to lock into this, but there was no push from Staff. Mr. Boardma indicated that Staff would\ike to see something happen as far as development goes, t they do not have developmRnt plans and would not be putting development plans t ether. Their intent on the ole proposal and the way they wrote the whole pro sal was that they were looking fo private initiative with the possibility of pac ging land or making land available fo development. At that point in time, any de v lopment proposals that would come in woul be judged on their own merit by the City ouncil and the proposals per se, would have t come from private developers, and wo not be proposed by the City Staff for privat development. Mr. Langenfeld stated thak he thought this began becausjo(of the land north of City Hall. Mr. Boardman stated that it Nd started when the Cit Council was discussing whether or not to purchase that property d there were discus ions with the Chamber of Commerce at that time, and also with thesiness owners the downtown area. There were a lot of different ideas as to what to d with the lap available and at that point in times the Chamber of Commerce requested th look in the possibility of hiring a consultant. At that point in time, Council stated report if they had a response from some consultants lists were put together and d put so much money into a consultants e business organizations. After that, the out. Mr. Peterson stated that the dow owntown a a, ss they could do something with Highway No. �+7, looks to ham that they have so a very di icult times ahead just because of the problem of the Highway in terms of ty ng it togeth . Mr. Peterson also stated that if the Chamber of Commerce and the adj ent property oN' rs were so interested, why don't they do like they did with the Met Stadium, in other rds, if they want City tax money spent on consultants, they shoul come up with part of , because they are the ones who would benefit. Mr. Peterson stated that he felt very ew people would benefit from this study, other than the bus ness owners in the area of wntowrn. Mr. Boardman stated he felt hat the City would also benefit ecause the City was sitting with a lot of acres that w re undeveloped or underdeveloped. is property is just sitting vacant and proba y would remain vacant for a long peri of time and the type of development that mig come out of there may not be the type o development that would be beneficial to the C ty. If the City, with the support of the C ber of Commerce and the businessmen in t area can put together packages to spark leve pment, why not? Mr. Peterson state° that he still felt that the property owners would a the ones to benefit and they hould comae up with some money and not take it out of he City tax money which is sically residents. Mr. Peterson stated he was not sure this was a legitimate fun ion of City government. Mr. Langenfe d stated that he had noted that throughout the documents he ha noted that they would tilize tax increment financing mechanism and would like an expl ation of that term. Mr. Boardman stated that tax increment financing was that it takes property that is pre- sent],y,property that is at a lower tax base, and through the selling of bonds they `acqui the p7/operty, develop the property to a higher tax level and the difference between the two tax levels pays off the bonds, and then over a period of years or what they call increments, those bonds are paid off with the differences in taxes and at that point in tune, the City would be getting a higher tax level out of the property. CITY OF FRIDLEY „- APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 26, 1978 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the December 26,. 1978, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Barna, Mr. Plemel Members Absent: Ms. Gabel Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MI1WES: DECEMBER 12, 1978: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel to approve the December 12, 1978, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5 30 5TH STREET N.E. 17MSE VARIANCES ARE NEEDED AS A RESULT OF A LOT SPLI' (�REQUEST SO THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED INTTO A SITE FOR A DOUBLE BUNGALOW. THE VARIANCE FOR THE DOUBLE BUNGALOW IS TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT J JUIV 1%.MblVLRU'•PJ.V-4.. Z%Jn 1LLL' JUA..LQ.L-L 'T 11VVs7.0 yV ll+SJt — -r.J +i+++ I . . . .. _ MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King to come forward. Mr. King stated that the variance request should be corrected. Mr. King stated it was 4.3 feet from the house to the sidewalk and 3.9 feet from the 60 foot lot to the house. Ms. Schnabel agreed that the variance should read 3.9 feet from the new property line, not 4.3 feet, because the sidewalk would be into the other property as a result of the lot split. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: I APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 26,_ 1978 PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5430-32 5th Street and 5436 5th Street N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: 205.053 (4B) two side yards are required with not less than 10 feet adjoining living area. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of .20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garage and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. 205:063 OA) A lot area of not less than 10,000 square feet is required for a two family dwelling unit. Public purpose served by this requirement is to -avoid the condition of over- crowding in a residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petition has property that is zoned multiple but because of the existing single family home on the property can only utilize his big lot by using part of -it for a double bungalow if the variances are approved. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The first variance requested is caused by the new lot line coming closer than the required 10 feet from the existing house. The new lot line would be.3,9: feet away from the south side of the existing home. If this variance is approved, it should be stipulated that the new structure proposed on the parcel south of this be located 16%1"feet south of the proposed north line, to provide the required 20 feet between living areas. The second variance requested is to reduce the required area for a two family dwelling from 10,000 square feet to 7,812 square feet. The location does lend -itself to the construction of a two family dwelling since the property is properly zoned and much of the surrounding area -As presently occupied by multiple dwellings. There is no more land available. The lot would be large enough for a single family dwelling. If the Commission approved this request it should stipulate that the new structure meet the rest of the two family zoning requirements and that it be located 1.6.1 -feet off the north property line to provide the required 20 feet between living areas. APPEALS COMMISSION MMTING,9 DECEMBER 26, 1978 - PAGE 3 I, 4 Ms. Schnabel stated that the Administrative Staff Report should be corrected as follows: the number "4.3 feet" should be changed to "3.9 feet", and the number "15.7 feet" should be changed to "16.1 feet". Mr. Clark asked how wide the structure was.that they planned to move in. Mr. King stated the structure was 32 feet wide. Ms. Schnabel stated that pages 6 and 7 of the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 1978, covered the discussion regarding the lot split request by the Dan -Lan Development Corporation. At the time of the lot split request it was stated that Mr. King and his partner were trying to purchase a double bungalow in Minneapolis that had to be moved because of a highway. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King if they had acquired the double bungalow yet. Mr. King stated they were still trying to purchase it but it was still a big maybe. Ms. Schnabel stated that at the time of the lot split request, the intent was that if the lot split request was approved and if the variances were approved, the petitioners were going to attempt to purchase the double bungalow and move it onto this piece of property. The petitioners had also stated that if they could not purchase the double bungalow, they would build a new double bungalow on the property. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King if they still intended to do that. Mr. King stated that was still their intent. Ms. Schnabel stated they would need the variances in either case. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark, regarding the statement in the Administrative Staff Report that the new dwelling be 16.1 feet from the property line, if there was an attached garage on the north side of the new structure they would be moving in, couldn't they actually go 11.1 feet to the property line instead. Mr. Clark stated the lot was not large enough for a house with an attached garage. Mr. King stated they were planning on a tuck -under. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King if they do purchase the double bungalow, would it have a tuck -under with it or would they build one. Mr. King stated that the contour of the lot was such that they would build a basement for the house and build a tuck -under for it. Ms. Schnabel stated that it was also discussed at the Planning Commission meeting that the double bungalow they would move in would have to meet all the requirements of the City Code and also meet the requirements of the Energy Code. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King if they would leave the sidewalk there. Mr. King stated they would take it out. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. King if they would maintain ownership of the double bungalow. Mr. King stated they would. I APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 26, 1978 - PAGE 4 .t Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark if he had received any comments from the neighbors and if he had any comments regarding this request. Mr. Clark stated that he had received no phone calls regarding this. Mr. Clark commented that they had not received a request like this before, but probably could expect similiar requests from the other side of the freeway where the highway took more land than they had to. Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding reducing the lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,812 square feet, the only other thing that could go on that lot would be a single family home, but the area already has a substantial number of multiple dwellings in existence, and for that reason she would not have a problem in reducing the lot size for a double bungalow. Also, only one variance was really needed for this lot for this particular house. Mr. Barna stated he had driven through the area, and felt he would not consider buying a new single family home in that area. A double bungalow would be about the only thing sensible economically. Mr. Barna asked if the tuck -under would be to the front or the rear of the structure. Mr. King stated the tuck -under would be to the rear. MOTION'by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED AT 7:57 P.M. Mr. Kemper stated that since the lot was in an area of multiple dwellings, and it did not seem feasible or sensible to put a single family dwelling on the lot, he would have no objections. Mr. Barna agreed. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to recommend to Council approval of the variance request pursuant to Section 205 of the Fridley City Code on the property known as 5430 5th Street N.E. These variances are needed as a result of a lot split request so that part of the property can be developed into a site for a double bungalow. The variance for the double bungalow is to reduce the square footage lot requirement from 10,000 square feet to 7,812 square feet, and to reduce the side yard requirement for the existing house from 10 feet to 3.9 feet from the new property line. If the development is completed, the addresses of the double bungalow will be 5430-32 5th Street N.E. and the existing house will be addressed as 5436 5th Street N.E., with the stipulation that the living area of the new structure be placed 16.1 feet from the lot line for the variance request for Code 205.063(lA). UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. King that this request would go to the City Council with the lot split request.