The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 88-25CITY OF FRIDLE `• 6431, UNW RSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLeY, MN 65432- (612) 543ti(612) 571-3450 VARIANCE REQUEST FORM VARIANCE # -a - VARIANCE FEE RECEIPT ,# -;0 PROPERTY INFORMATION SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE PROPERTY ADDRESS / /Y LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK q� TRACT/ADDITION , 1� - &,E I r- y� PRESENT ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building, C-1% variance(s), where applicable. Section of the Code: t specific hardship(s) which require the variance(s): b o FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAME (please print) �5 k 1) E.- Al ADDRESS 5'7-- A / . SIGNATURE Note to ######### / DATE � PETITIONER 114FORMATION NAME (please print)"rA fl% PHONE 6'9/ -J-7) ADDRESS - �` TW -s 4 /1 ,ff SIGNATURE DATE — ################################################################################## APPEALS COMKISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: W-1 5OR .� fW90jr-WWWRIEN W. -AFF W-M.m- 4 COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW Department Number File Date Meeting Date CITYOF Community Development 45 9/7/88 10/11/88 FRIDLEY File Address/Description VAR #88-25 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST Elden Eggerud, 5870 - 5th St. NE side yard variance for deck RETURN TO PLANNING Michelle COMMENTS JOHN X/,e, / O'v.— ..ARREL CLYDE ON/ KATHY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE, APPEALS COMMBSSION Notice is hereby given that the Appeals commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the a m unity Education Center at 6085 Seventh- Street N.E. at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 1988, for the Purpose of: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #88-25, by Elden Eggerud, pursuant to Section 205.07..03.D, (2)j, (c),, (1) , of the Fridley City Code to reduce the. side yard setback from 14.5 feet to 10 feet to allow the ox-structim of a deck cn Lot 1, Block 5, Bennett Palmer Addition, the same being 5870 - 5th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the aTiom stated time and place. 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 oontinue to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a reommendation from the Appeals Commission. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Coxammity Development Department. 571-3450. VAR #88-25 Elden Eggerud 5870 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, MLN 55432 MAILING LIST Ben Gruba 5871 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, N1 55432 City Council Members Robert Radoush City image' 5901 - 5th Street N.E. Chair ersm of Appeals Commission idle,, MV 55432 Roy Erickson Randall Nielsen 4325 Vinoent Avenue N. 5909 - 5th Street N.E. Minneapolis, MV 55412 Fridley, MV 55432 Roy Erickson Allen Montgomery 5900 - 4th Street N.E. 5841 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, MSV 55432 Kwei Chen Duane Vizenor 5872 - 4th Street N.E. 5851 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, My 55432 Fridley, M1 55432 Resident Lillian Kruesel 5870 - 4th Street N.E. 5861 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, MV 55432 William Guenther Mary Schultz 5860 - 4th Street N.E. 5871 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, Mi 55432 William Guenther Bernard Hartman 643 Rosedale Road N.E. 5860 - 5th Street N.E. Spring Lake Park, MV 55432 Fridley, MV 55432 Resident Beverley Dertinger 5862 - 4th Street N.E. 5850 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, MST 55432 Gary Muske Marjorie Huseby 2321 Stinson Parkway 5840 - 5th Street N.E. Minneapolis, MJ 55418 Fridley, MQ 55432 Gary Muske Bernard Solyntjes 5850 - 4th Street N.E. 5916 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, M1V 55432 Fridley, MV 55432 Florus Robeck Everett Collins 5841 - 5th Street N.E. 5908 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, MV 55432 Thhonas Dunt ley Leonard Hoffman 5851 - 5th Street N.E. 5900 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Fridley, MLV 55432 Richard Larsen Chester Dorf 5861 - 5th Street N.E. 5901 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, My 55432 Fridley, MQ 55432 Appeals -9/p Paul Bakken 5909 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Cermak 5917 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, My 55432 STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE FRI DLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO ADOPTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & SERI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #88-25 Elden Eggerud To reduce the side yard setback fran 14.5 ft. to 10 ft. to allow the construction of a deck 5870 - 5th Street N.E. 11,816 sq. ft. 9% lot coverage R-1 N: R-1 S: R-1 E: R-1 W: R-1 yes See Administrative Staff Report Item #1, Oct. 11, 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5870 - 5TH STREET N.E. VAR #88-25 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.03.D,(2),(c),(1), requires a side yard setback between the building and the side property line. Section 205.04.06.A,(3) requires that decks not extend more than 3 feet into any required side yard. 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. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Our home has a walk -out basement. A deck off the kitchen, which is like second floor, would be too high and too expen- sive. We need steps to the side door, and we would like to put the deck on that side, too." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The petitioner, Mr. Eggerud, is requesting a 4.5 ft. side yard variance to construct a 19 ft. by 10 ft. unenclosed deck on the north side of his house. The petitioner is claiming his hardship is justified due to the topography of the land and the house's floor plan. The land slopes from the front of the lot to the rear. If the deck was attached to the back of the house the deck would be too high off the finished ground grade and too expensive to build. The north side of the house contains the living areas; therefore, the deck would be functional at this location. Bedrooms are located on the house's south side. Section 205.07.03.D, (2), (c) , (1) , requires a 17.5 ft. side yard building setback for corner lots. Decks cannot extend more than 3 ft. into the required sideyard (Section 205.04.06.A(3); therefore, a 14.5 ft. setback is actually required. Mr. Eggerud's deck will encroach 4.5 ft. into this setback, reduc- ing it to 10 ft. Although the public purposes served by these regulations are not violated, the hardship is not practical. A hardship is created when the strict application of the zoning code deprives the owner rightful use of the land. Even with the application of this ordinance, a deck can be constructed without encroach- ing upon the building setbacks. The hardship is not justified. Consideration should be given to this. If approved, Staff recommends no stipulations be attached. 17 '�• �� '�, q D `► i \��jswdp IRS 40 LOCATION MAP s n U MiNDFjtF.awGiNB' *G Co:, INC ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS u.wo SOILS TESTING CIVIL Ir MUNICIPAL LNOINaERINo LANO PLANNING 6416-SOTM AVENUE N. MINNEAPOLIS TF.MINN• KE 7- SG37 corlillicait of arvey Aoo �� t b b AR�A Fot2 DEC.�G.. L no,.l vvwC.r-t coNj;:c2ntS -To coot= -- 5 c a /c orJ>=Scant %'w 36 o T/, 15L o CAr-5- ►IEREOY CERTIFY Tim THIS I$ A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BW141DPAIES OF ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OFT14E LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF AMY, THEREON, A40 ALL VISIBLE ENCROACNW AY, FROM 00. ON SAID LAND. MINDER ENGINEERING CO., INC. 1 TN1f. Due of f►J6l�litRS AMO LU0.Y4YORt SITE PLAN • SAM n=ammnTn 2 .v 21 2.r.._. �.,s ... .�.. CITE' OP M--X)1EY APPEALS COMMISSION 1`ME,=G, OCTOBER 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Barna called the October ll, 1988, Appeals ComtLssion meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. POLL CALL: Members Present: Alex Barna, Diane Savage,, Ken Vos, Jerry Sherek Menbers Absent: Larry.Kuechle Others Present: Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Mr. & Mrs. Elden Eggerud, 5870 - 5th St. N.E.j APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 20, '1988; APPEALS -COMMISSION W[NUM: i MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek; to approve the September 20, 1988, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MM DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST,_ VAS '# 88--25 , BY, ET -DEN EGGERM: Pursuant to Section 205,07.03.1), ,2,n .c., 1., of the Fridley City Code to reduce the building side yard setback; and pursuant to Section 205.04.06.A,(3), of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback from 14.5 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 1, Block 5, Bennett. -Palmer Addition, the same being 5870-•5th.Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms, Savage, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CWM PERSON BARNA DE= ARID THE PUBLIC H UZING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Chairperson Barna read the Administrative. Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5870 - 5TH STREET N.E. VAR #88-25 Section 205.07.03.D, (2), (c), (1), requires a side yard setback between the building and the side property line. Section 205.04.06.A,(3), requires that decks not extend more than 3 feet into any required side yard. APPEALS MMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1988 PAGE 2 r 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. v� �r r� •�� rN• "Our home has a walk -out basement.. A deck off the kitchen, which is like second floor, would be too high and too expensive. We need steps to the side door, and we would Me' to put the deck on that side, too." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The petitioner, Mr. Eggerud, is requesting a 4.5 ft. side yard variance to construct a 19 ft. by 10 ft. unenclosed. deck on the north side of the house. The petitioner is claiming his hardship is.justi.fied due to the topography of the land and the house"s floor plan. The land slopes from the front of the lot to the rear. If the deck was attached to the back of the house; the deck would be too high off the finished- ground grade and too expensive to build. The north side of the house contains -the living areas; therefore, the deck would be functional at this location. Bedrooms are located on the house's south side. Section 205.07.03.b,(2),(.c)�(11, requires a 17,5 ft. side yard building set- back etback for corner lots. Decks cannot extend more than 3 ft, into the required side yard (Section 20.5.04.06.A,. (3); therefore, a 14,5 ft. setback is actually required. Mr. Eggerud"s deck will encroach.4,5 ft, into this setback, reduc- ing it to 10 ft. Although the public purpose served by these regulations are not violated, the hardship is not practical, A hardship is created when the strict application of the zoning code deprives the owner rightful use of the land. Even with the application of this ordinance, a deck can be constructed without encroach- ing upon the building setbacks, The hardship is not justified. Consideration should -be given to this. If approved, staff recce -ends no stipulations be attached, Mr. Clark. stated that the edge. of the deck would .be 10 ft, frons the property line, There is approximately a-. 10 ft,, boulevard, so the deck wood be about 20 ft. from the curb, He stated' if the Comissioners visited the site, they probably noticed that the walkout is to the rear, so the driveway running in along the west side of the lot is at grade more or less with 59th Avenue, and the yard slopes up to the house, as well as the front yard. Mr. Clark stated if the Appeals Carnnission approves this request, he would recommend they stipulate that the deck cannot be enclosed into a three -season or screened porch. While an open deck is not so objectionable from the line of sight and doesn't look so close to the street, a screened porch or a three -season porch would look much closer to the street. Mr. Barna stated the State Energy Code allows people to install airlocks (outside entryway such as a foyer). An airlock structure could be built on this deck. If the Commission specified that the deck is not to be fully enclosed, could an airlock be considered as a future addition, since the deck will be on the north side of the building? APPEALS CCMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1988 PAGE 3 Mr. Clark stated he thought airlocks are allowed to encroach into a required yard, usually the front yard, 6 ft. If that same 6 ft, is allowed into the required side yard, it would only be 1 ft, or a little less than the 17 1/2 ft. that the Zoning Code requires. He stated he would have to check the City Code to verify this. Mr. Clark stated the Zoning Code would allow Mr. Eggerud to build a 5 1/2 ft. deck without a variance. Mr, Eggerud feels a 5 1/2 ft..deck is not adequate. A 5 1/2 deck would really be more like a boardwalk or sidewalk than a deck. Ms. Savage asked why the petitioner wished to build a deck. Ms. Eggerud stated they want to be able to sit outside and enjoy the outdoors, but a 5 1/2 ft. deck was not very wide and would not give them much room to move around. Dr. Vos stated the deck would be built 5-6 ft. back from the front northeast corner of the house, so the deck would not stick out on the corner to obstruct the line of sight. Mr. Barna asked that when someone pulls up in the driveway, how does that person get to the side door? Mr. Eggerud stated people walk up the hill to the side door, People have walked up the hill and slid down. He stated it is a dangerous situation, and someone is going to get hurt. That is another reason for having the steps go down from the deck to the driveway, Dr. Vos stated if the house had been built at the normal side yard setback on the south side, there would have been zmre than enough roc= .to put this size deck. MOTION by Ms. Savage,. seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DEMMED THE. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he did not think the hardship as stated by the petiticner was adequate. in looking at the south lot line and some of the other factors, he could see there were scene other hardships that were not documented. If the house had been built another 5 ft. to the south, *-this variance would not be needed. Also, if this was not a corner lot, there would not be, the need for a variance. The Commission seems to get a lot of variance requests for corner lots because of the wider setback. He stated. he did not have any compelling reason to deny the request or to approve the request; however, if there was a motion to approve the variance, he would vote in favor of it. Ms. Savage stated the deck itself, unlike an enclosed structure, would not be intruding into the side yard line of sight. She thought the deck would probably be an enhancement to the looks of the house. As stated in the -Administrative Staff Review, there was really no violation of the public purpose of the code by the placement -of this deck. It seemed like a rather minimal request. She did not think that by approving this variance, they would be violating the spirit of the Code, and she would vote in favor of the variance. APPEALS CCRUSSION MEETING, OL`MBER 11, 1988 PAGE 4 Mr. Sherek stated he agreed with Dr. Vos, that he was neither for or against this variance as requested. He did not have any great problem with granting the variance for the deck, even though the hardship was minimal. A deck is not a required item; and not having a deck was not going to cause any great hardship on the petitioner. He did not think the deck would cause much problem with the line of sight; however, he was a little concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Barna stated he would vote in favor of the variance because of the following hardships: (1) The safety factor of no outside access.to the side entrance of the house from'the driveway. The deck. with the pteps would provide access/egress to the rear yard. Even though a 5 1/2 ft. deck would serve the same purpose equally well, it would not give the petitioner the added recreational enjoyment. For a 4.5 ft. side yard encroachment, they have already set precedents in the past for similar situations;. (2) The placement of the house. If the house had been placed on the lot farther to the south, there would be no need for a variance; (3) No real encroachment into the side yard line of sight. Ms. Savage stated she would be opposed to -any kind of enclosure on the deck. She thought it would reduce the line of sight, Mr. Clark stated, again, he .would have to check the. City Code as he was not sure if the Code specifically mentions side yards for an airlock. If it doesn't mention side yards, then the requirement to living space would be 17 1/2 ft., which means the peititioner could go out only 2 1/2 ft. with, an airlock. Depend- ing upon how the Code reads, it is possible the petitioner might be allowed to put in an airlock up to 6 ft. wide without a variance, Ms. Savage stated that if the Code requires an airlock, she obviously would not have a problem with it. -MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to approve variance request, VAR #88-25, by Elden Eggerud, pursuant to Section 205.07.03,D, (2) , (c) , (1) , of the Fridley City Code to reduce the building side yard setback; and pursuant to Section 205.04.06.A,(3), of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback from 14.5 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 1, Block 5, Bennett -Palmer Addition, -the same being 5870 - 5th Street N.E., with the stipu- lation that no enclosure can be put on the deck that does not meet the required side yard setbacks. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOrIM AYE, CMUMPERSON BARNA DEMAMM THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIlWSLY. ADJOURNMENT. - MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna declared the October 11, 1988, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 8006 p.m. U7YOF FItIDLkY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Elden Eggerud 5870 - 5th Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 October 18, 1988 On Tuesday, October 11, 1988, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #88-25, to reduce the building side yard setback and to reduce the side yard setback from 14.5 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 1, Block 5, Bennett -Palmer Addition, the same being 5870 - 5th Street N.E. with the following stipulation: 1. No enclosure can be put on the deck that does not meet the required side yard setbacks. rel , Darrel Clark Chief Building Official DC:ls Please review the above stipulation, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley Community Development Department by November 1, 1988. Concur with action taken