The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 87-21vna CITYOF FPlDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55332 • PHONE (612) 571-3350 rawwm*--qy On Tuesday, June 9, 1987, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially denied your request for a variance, VAR #87-21, by Muriel and Frank Sharpe, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03, D, 2b, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of an attached garage on Lot 7, Block 2, Bennett Palmer Addition, the same being 5924 - 5th Street h. E. , Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. This item will be heard by the City Council on July 6, 1987, for their final consideration. if for any reason you wish to withdraw your request, please notify us in writing by June 26, 1987. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, Darrel Clark Chief Building Official DC/lnn MEMO TO: Jock Robertson, Community Development &V MEND FROM: Darrel Clark, Chief Building Cfficial MEMO DATE: June 26, 1987 RFT,ADI1�: 5924 - 5th Street Variance Response to Mr. & Mrs. Sharpe's Letter of Withdrawal Dated June 26, 1987 I feel sorry for the way Mr. & Mrs. Sharpe feel about their variance denial. We do explain to potential petitioners the importance of a stated hardship and the attitude of an effected neighbor. Please recall that the proposed ordinance mentioned in their letter, if adopted as considered by the Appeals Commission and Planning Commission, would have allowed the Sharpe's to build without a variance. The ordinance was amended so that it would only apply to an existing single car garage (which has merit). In the fourth paragraph of their letter they do state "without neighbor objection". Please recall that the neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Peka did attend the Appeals Commission meeting of June 9, 1987 and did object, which was a surprise to Mr. & Mrs. Sharpe. The Pika's on several occasions voiced their objections to me by telephone and in person. I told them to please discuss their concerns with their neighbors. The SharpeIstold me that Pekas were in favor of their request and also were told to again discuss the request with the Pekas because they were told that my impressions of the Peka's statements to me were somewhat negative. It is apparent that the follow-up discussion never took place. I spoke with Mr. Sharpe on Tuesday, June 23, 1987. He called me and asked haw they should withdraw their request and at that time stated many of the comments indicated in their letter. He further stated that they and the Pekas had a recent meeting and that they were again, or still, friends. This fact was nice to hear. I did not remind him of our discussions prior to the meeting because I felt it would only cause more argument and ill feelings between them and the Pekas. A handout pamphlet could be prepared for potential petitioners, however the past hardship considerations have varied so much and even if the stated hardship is very clear and definite, denial is still possible. It could mislead some petitioners into believing that they have no legal right to apply if they don't meet all criteria, or if they do meet the stated pamphlet examples that they can not be denied. Again, let me state I am sorry for the Sharpes and I have expressed that to than in my June 23rd conversation. I will wait for further directive from you before any further action will be taken on the matter. DGC/mh ATTACH: 1 Mr. Darrel Clark City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE rridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr, Clark: We are writing to inform you that we do not wish to continue our pursuit of a variance to the next sten, which would be a hearing before the Citv Council on July 6. We do, however, feel that we must address the issue of inaccurate and/or incomplete information which we received during the course of following the variance procedure. When we first inquired about a variance, you informed us that the Citv Council was considerine an ordinance which would deal with our specific problem, and if we could wait until that ordinance passed, we would not need a variance. Eventually we discovered that the ordinance dealt only with those homes which already had an attached single garage and would not pertain to us as you had specified, It is discouraging to think that we could still be waiting for this ordinance to pass in the belief that it would address our situation. Secondly, when applying for the variance at the City office, we were told to list any hardships. When we inquired what might constitute a hardship and exnlainpd our orobler.!s, we were assured that those would certainly he considered hard- ships.. We were also led to believe that unless a neighbor objected, passage of the variance was quite likelv, and, a fairly routine procedure. This was certainly not accurate information. After attending the hearing of the Appeals Commission at which Nr. Don Betzold explained what constituted a legal hardship, it was easy to agree with his. that our case would not come under that heading, but why weren't we riven an accurate description by you or your office when we first inquired? Our time, as well as the time spent by the Appeals Commission was wasted. In addition, we spent S60.00 for a variance hearing which had no chance of passing. Also, in the time we waited for the hearing, interest rates rose. This will cost us additional money for nears to come. While our case is over we would like to make a suggestion which would help Five others better information on which to base their decision of whether or not to file for a variance. We suggest the development of a pamphlet/brochure to he given to each person who requests an application for a variance which would explain the variance procedure and contain a description of what constitutes a legal hardship. Had we heard the short explanation as given by Mr. Betzold at the beginning of our variance inquiries instead of at the hearing, we would have known better op. iances I lieve if than given pay $ for �ct inform inforto obtain a mation a consistentrbasis. it weould save time were given this and expense for many vv eople. I spoke with Cowncilwomen Nancy Jorgenson on June 24 regarding this matter and the hope that the Council would instruct vowdepartment to develop such an informational brochure. She indicated that when she had first heard about our variance, she had contacted the city office and indicated to the staff the unlikelihood of our variance being approved under the letter of the law and asked the staff to explain the situation to us and try to discourage our request. This certainly was never done. The incorrect and incomplete information we received certainly caused us uzmecessary time, frustration, and most of all, expense. Hopefully, an informational brochure would keen this from happenins to others in the future. Sincerelv /Frank J. harpe and Muriel J. Sharpe 5924 Fifth Street NE Fridley, Mn 55432 cc: Nancy Jorgenson Don Betzold CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the June 9, 1987, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Donald Betzold, Alex Barna, Jerry Sherek, Diane Savage, Kenneth Vos Menbers Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley Marlene & Lawrence Peka, 5932 - 5th St. N.E. Frank & Muriel Sharpe, 5924 - 5th St. N.E. Nancy Jorgenson, Councilperson-at-Large APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO APPROVE THE MAY 26, 1987, APPEALS C011MISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST. VAR #87-21. BY MURIEL AND FRANK SHARPE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FRO14 -5 FEET 70 3 FE -ET iO ALLO HEC S R TION AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, BENUETT PALMER ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 5924 - 5TH STREET .E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. MOTION BY DR. VOS, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5924 - 5TH STREET N.E. VAR #87-21 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.03, D, 2b, requires a side yard of 5 feet between an attached accessory building or use and side property lines. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1987 PAGE 2 The public purpose served by this requirement is to provide space between individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies, and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We are requesting a variance to allow us to build a double -attached garage up to three feet from our property line, for the following reasons: 1. We presently have a single detached garage which is inadequate for storing our vehicles (two cars, a truck, a boat, and a trailer). We feel that the addition of a double attached garage (30 ft. deep) would allow for storage of more of the vehicles in a more attractive manner. 2. The location of our current garage at the very back of our property gives us a 123 foot driveway, which, as you can imagine, is extremely difficult to clear of snow during the winter. With our neighbor's driveway right next to ours, all snow must be cleared in one direc- tion only. This is a several hour task during a heavy snow, and as we become older this will become increasingly more difficult to accomplish. Building an attached garage, as we propose, will cut the length of our driveway by 73 feet to a more manageable length of approximately 50 feet. 3. If our house was only one step up from our driveway, we could have a little more leeway, but the elevation of our side door makes it necessary to go within three feet of the property line in order to build a garage large enough to park two cars and still have room for the steps into the house and meet the city requirements for a 30 inch landing on our steps into the house. In an effort to find other alternatives, we investigated the possibility of expanding our current garage. Several contractors have advised us against that alternative. First of all, they will not guarantee the expansion because of their inability to predict whether or not expanded slab will "float" together with changes in weather, particularly in our sandy soil. Also, they have explained that the slope of our lot could create a drainage problem for us and/or our neighbor to the west if we were to add onto the front of the current garage. Also, this would not solve our problem of the extra long driveway. We are very proud of our neighborhood and the steps taken by everyone to upgrade their homes and improve the looks of the total neighborhood. Please be assured that it is our intent to improve the attractiveness of our house, property, and neighborhood and not to detract from it in any way." APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1987 PAGE 3 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The petitioner would like to both increase their storage capacity and reduce the length of their driveway as stated in their hardship presentation. They presently have 23.5 feet between their existing house and the north property line. They now have a 16 foot detached garage in the rear yard which they would also like to keep and may apply for a special use permit to retain it if this variance is approved. The adjacent neighbor's driveway is adjacent to this proposed garage location. If the Board approves thei request, the Staff recommends that the north wall of the new garage have no openings and that it be of.fire-rated construction. Mr. Clark showed a picture of the property along with an aerial photo of the proposed addition. Mr. Barna asked how far the corner of the proposed garage would be to the corner of the neighbor's existing garage. Mr. Frank Sharpe stated there was about 12 ft. from the back corner of their proposed garage to the front corner of the neighbor's garage. Mr. Betzold stated he had read the petitioner's stated hardship. He stated the Commission was bound by state law to -follow certain procedures and standards in granting variances. There has to be a "hardship" --something unique about the situation or the property that said it would be unfair to require the petitioner to adhere to the code. He would like the petitioner to explain to the Commission what was unique or unfair about this situation that would require a variance. Ms. Muriel Sharpe stated they could put on an 182 ft. attached garage without a variance, but because their house was set so high from the driveway, in order to leave enough space on the left of the proposed garage door for stairs, they cannot build an 182 ft. garage. Another problem was they have a boat, trailer, two cars, and a truck that have to be parked on the property or on the driveway. They feel this makes their property look "tacky", and they are very concerned about how their property looks. She stated they presently have a 123 ft. long driveway, and it was very difficult for snow removal in the wintertime. Mr. Betzold stated that if the Appeals Commission was to grant this variance allowing the double car garage closer to the lot line, would that essentially preclude the neighbor from ever being able to build a double car garage on their lot? This was an issue that should be addressed by the Commission. Mr. Barna stated that, unfortunately, the Commission could not look at the stairway or the long driveway as hardships. He could see nothing that would stop the petitioner from building an in -code garage closer to the back of the house right next to the neighbor's detached rear garage. As far as the stairs, to build an attached garage within code, it wouldn't cost that much more to have a few more courses of block and a slab poured level with the house and have no stairs. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1987 PAGE 4 Ms. Sharpe stated their contractor recommended against what Mr. Barna was suggesting. Their contractor had said it would be poor building practice to build to that depth because of settling problems with holding the dirt in and building on top. - -Ms. Marlene Pika, 5932 - 5th St., stated she and her husband lived right next door. She stated there was only about 23 ft. from the Sharpe's house to the lot line, and it was about the same between their house at the lot line. She stated they were opposed to the garage in the location proposed because it was just too close to the lot line, and the area would be too'congested. She thought the garage could be offset to the back of the house and be kept 5 ft. off the lot line. Mr. Clark stated that if the garage was attached to the house, it must be 5 ft. off the lot line. If the garage was detached, it can be built 3 ft. from the lot line. MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Barna stated there really was no valid hardship. The petitioner could still build a good-sized attached garage with no variances. Mr. Betzold stated he also did not see any hardship. The code was recently changed to allow garages closer to the lot line, but he did not think this proposed garage would fall within the situations they were trying to address with that code change. There was room enough for one property owner, but not two property owners, to have a double car garage, and he did not think it was fair to allow one of the neighbors to have a double car garage and then preclude the other neighbor from ever having one. Ms. Savage stated it seemed very clear that a double car garage could be built without the needfor variances. There was also a definite opposition from the neighbor. Dr. Vos stated he did not see any hardship of why this was the only possibility for building a garage. There were many other places on the lot where a double car garage could be built. Mr. Sherek stated the plan was a good one. If there was more room on the lot, it would certainly be the most desirable location. In looking at the code that pertains to this variance request,calling attention to the crowding, both for fire reasons and for the appearance of the neighborhood, the Commission does give variances when the numbers come out in excess of what the code already allows. In this case, they would be encroaching upon the letter of the law, and he -could not vote in favor of the variance as requested. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1987 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #87-21, BY MURIEL AND FRANK SHARPE, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.03, D, 2b, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 3 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED - GARAGE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, BENNETT PALMER ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 5924 - 5TH STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Betzold stated this item would go to City=Council on July 6. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE JUNE 9, 1987, APPEALS C011MISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M. Respectfully sub itted, yn Saba Reco ding Secretary t !. Item #1, June 9, 1987 V I I Y' ' Y ' D1' • N 5924 - 57H STREET N. E. VAR #87-21 ' 1j: ' 1 ' . �• �► ' a� 1 r �� Section 205.07.03, D, 2b, requires a side yard of 5 feet between an attached accessory building or use and side property lines. The public purpose served by this requirement is to provide space between individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies, and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We are requesting a variance to allow us to build a double -attached garage up to three feet from out property line, for the following reasons: 1. We presently have a single detached garage which is inadequate for storing our vehicles (two cars, a truck, a boat and a trailer) . We feel that the addition of a double attached garage (30 feet deep) would allow for storage of more of the vehicles in a more attractive manner. 2. The location of our current garage at the very back of our property gives us a 123 foot driveway, which, as you can imagine is extremely difficult to clear of snow during the winter. With our neighbors driveway right next to ours, all snow must be cleared in one direction only. This is a several hour task during a heavy snow, and as we become older this will become increasingly more difficult to accomplish. Building an attached garage, as we propose, will cut the length of our driveway by 73 feet to a more manageable length of approximately 50 feet. 3 . If our house was only one step up f rom our driveway we would have a little more leeway, but the elevation of our side door makes it necessary to go within three feet of the property line in order to build a garage large enough to park two cars and still have room for the steps into the house and meet the city requirements for a 30 inch landing on our steps into the house. "In an effort to find other alternatives, we investigated the possibility of expanding our current garage. Several contractors have advised us against that alternative. First of all, they will not guarantee the expansion because of their inability to predict whether or not the expanded slab will "float" together during changes in weather, particularly in our sandy soil. Also, they have explained that the slope of our lot could create a drainage problem for us and/or our neighbor to the west if we were to add onto the front of the current garage. Also, this would not solve our problem of the extra long driveway. G STAFF REPORT - VAR #87-21 PAGE 2 "We are very proud of our neighborhood and the steps taken by everyone to upgrade their hasnes and improve the looks of the total neighborhood. Please be assured that it is our intent to improve the atractiveness of our house, property and neighborhood and not to detract from it in any n C. A INIM IITIVE STAFF REVIEN: The petitioner would like to both increase their storage capacity and reduce the length of their driveway as stated in their hardship presentation. They presently have 23.5 feet between their existing house and the north property line. They now have a 16 foot detached garage in the rear yard which they would also like to keep and may apply for a special use permit to retain it if this variance is approved. The adjacent neighbor's driveway is adjacent to this proposed garage location. If the Board approves this request the staff recommends that the north wall of the new garage have no openings and that it be of fire rated construction. ✓ \i •y .. �' - �1�//� `�¢ 3479pr / 1 � `Al /9 s1'�1^� � g --I i 1 /36.700 6• o � �4W � 20 \ L1 B �`'� 3 m > \ m n //i �� ° •, y Ivy // � /.3S.2B a "7 � - FO\,\ 117 6 AP ✓ t mV —��'�f •µti •y .. �' - �1�//� `�¢ 3479pr / d• L � `Al /9 s1'�1^� � g . z9 i 1 /36.700 6• o � �4W � �// \ L1 B �`'� 3 m � �i �° \ m n //i �� ° •, y Ivy // � /.3S.2B '��G � d 6 AP d >e. /7 � 3� 8 �,h e .d4 f0J - - / ssa ?s/F JS/S of In Zee TH AVENUE b e W ,Z tt) 59 TH (!)�a; 1 .a2 d� /34 3479pr / d• L � `Al /9 tti� Z '� • i / /36.700 6• o � �4W � 7 B 05 e W ,Z tt) 59 TH (!)�a; 1 .a2 d� /34 3479pr / d• L � `Al /9 tti� Z '� • / /36.700 6• o � r � 7 B 05 f.6 /or h / d67 AP d >e. /7 � 3� 8 �,h e .d4 f0J - - / ssa ?s/F JS/S e W ,Z tt) 59 TH (!)�a; 1 .a2 7; % o ?z) Q� / 2 3, j 5 35.20 7 B 05 / 36•J7 AP d >e. /7 � 3� 8 �,h e n •� 9 �,�v� h f0J - - 60 ?s/F JS/S of I � PLACE ;lS.z ° L,Z 2 (it) (!)�a; /�s) 7; % o ?z) Q� / 2 3, j 5 35.20 7 B pis. 9 r..9 3s/7 /7 ?s/F I � PLACE ;lS.z ° L,Z 2 /sJ[zs /�f r o 113 0 Q� � m 35.20 /1b 2� a (�1>/7 pis. 9 r..9 3s/7 /7 ?s/F JS/S of N. E. 4, We are requesting a variance to allow us to build a double -attached garage up to three feet from our property line, for the following reasons: 1. We presently -have a single detached garage which is inadequate for storing our vehicles (two cars, a truck, a boat and a trailer). We feel that the addition of a double attached garage (30 feet deep) would allow for storage of more of the vehicles in a more attractive manner. 2. The location of our current garage at the very back of our property gives us a 123 foot driveway, which, as you can imagine is extremely difficult to clear of snow during the winter. With our neighbors driveway right next to ours, all snow must be cleared in one direction only. This is a several hour task during a heavy snow, and as we become older this will become increasingly more difficult to accomplish. Building an attached garage, as we propose, will cut the length of our driveway by 73 feet to a more manageble length of approximately 50 feet. 3. If our house was only one step up from our driveway we would have a little more leeway, but the elevation of our side door makes it necessary to go within three feet of the property line in order to build a garage large enough to park two cars and still have room for the steps into the house and meet -the city requirements for a 30 inch landing on our steps into the house. In an effort to find other alternatives, we investigated the possibility of .expandi.n9 our current garage. Several contractors have advised us against that alternative. First of all, they will not guarantee the expansion because of their inability to predict whether or not the expanded slab will "float" together during changes in weather, particularly in our sandy soil. Also, they have explained that the slope of our lot could create a drainage problem for us and/or our neighbor to the west if we were to add onto the front of the current garage. Also, this would not solve our problem of the extra long driveway. We are very proud of our neighborhood and the steps taken by everyone to upgrade their homes and improve the looks of the total neighborhood. Please be assured that it is our intent to improve the attractiveness of our house, property and neighborhood and not to detract from it in any way. COMMSSION APPLICATION REVIEW Department Number File Date C�N Meeting Date , Planning 45 5/18/87 6/09/87 IMMEY File AddresV1,2D4es5thpgtI0nVAR #87-21 treet COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST Frank and Muridl Sharpe reduce s.y. s.b. RETURN TO PLANNING J]DARYL COMMENTS �---�-DEBBIE , c,�v�s i-�v�e. 00-1, Palt cl-lw�k avl ex T�- Qkwvt v E]JIM LQ i VIOL DEBBIE °Ja✓'c12 a f v v- o- 5 p e,4 %aA U �Pov✓►°�T. �-F + UU remove, JOHN VAARREL BB1Es - ack.lav-r – i q- Oio0 alluvia, DEBBIE ®s v ws t LYDE DEBBIE �p{�.ve.Pr� - 10i l u MARK kx+ Qvw r c�o 07o (25% alto",�) DEBBIE aE OW - DEBBIE I CITY OF FRIDLEY ; �6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, IAN 55432 (612) 571-3450 ��45 PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VARIANCE REQUEST FORM VARIANCE # (9 1 - Z VARIANCE FEE -060o CEIPT # al V7-5-6 SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE 5924 Fifth Street NE, Fridley, Mn 55432 LOT 7 BLOCK 2 TRACT/ADDITION Bennett Palmer Addition PRESENT ZONING VARIANCE MUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building, variance(s), where applicable. to build a 202 foot wide attached garage at three feet from our north property line (pl ease see attached sheets) /1 u.+ ��n s -to 3 Qom- s�_r�� --- Section of the Code: 20!5-070 3 , D z List specific hardship(s) which require the variance(s): please see attached sheet for explanation FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAME (please print) Frank and Muriel Sharpe PHONE 571-6981 ADDRESS 5924 Fifth Street NE , Mn 55432 ' GNATURE DATE If# V4 ETITIONER INFORMATION (LD) -n5-300 ,+l �ME (please print) Frank and'Muriel Sharpe PHONE 571-6981 DRESS _ -aIGNATURE 5924 Fifth Street NE Fridl Mn 55432 APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE roLu k 1 CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: I FOE CITY USE ONLY Notification of petitioner and property owners within 200 feet: G" Name/Address Date notified . I { I { { { { { { { { { { I { { { I { i { { { I c, { I { { . { { G^ { { { I L FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, in regard to the following matter: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #87-21, by Frank and Muriel Sharpe, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03, D, 2b, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of an attached garage on Lot 7, Block 2, Bennett Palmer Addition, the same being 5924 - 5th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. DONALD BETZCLD CHAIRMAN APPEALS OOMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a reconunendation from the Appeals Commission. Appeals 5/29/87 MAILING LIST VAR #87-21 5924 - 5th Street Muriel and Frank Sharpe Muriel and Frank Sharpe William Urban Joseph Calistro 5924 - Sth Street 5932 - 4th St. 5917 - 4th St. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Ocel Douglas Holm Robert Radoush 5948 - Sth Street 5940 - 6th St. 5901 - Sth Street Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Johnson Paul Hengel Randall Nielsen 5940 - Sth Street 5932 - 6th St. 5909 - Sth St. Fridley, MN 55437 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Lawrence Peka Rodney Vickerman Ernest Walters 5932 - Sth St. 5924 - 6th St. 5917 - Sth Street Fridley, MN 554321 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Elr-oy'Bombardier Daniel Ashlin Bernard Solyntjes 5925 - 4th Street 5925 - 5th Street 5916 - Sth St. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Carolyn Crotteau Peter Krochalk Everett Collins 5933 - 4th St. 5933 - 5th St. 5908 - Sth St. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, NN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Carraher William Perkins Leonard Hoffman 5941 - 4th Street 5941 - 5th St. 5900 - Sth St. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Annett WAilace Youngquist Ellert Ihlan 5949 - 4th Street 5949 - Sth St. 5926 - 4th St. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Rodney Vickerman Chester Dorf Timothy Parker 5924 - 6th St. 5901 - 4th St. 7316 Humboldt Ave. No. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Gerald Foss Paul Bakken John Gritti 5940 - 4th St. 5909 - 4th Street 5916 - 6th Street Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 r