Loading...
VAR 04.69It bq-61 v4 APPLICATION 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 7 c- 2. Legal Description of Property (also general location, such ass"north- east corner of 64th Avenue and 5th Street" or 6415 Fifth 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.) 1 ni L �• r: cflL ;'L ��� ,, ✓ Q -p � 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.) ff - 2 - 5. Notice of Hearing appeared in Official Newspaper on the following dates: (must be at least once 10 days before meeting -- copy of notice to be attached). 6. Board Members notified of meeting by .April 14, 1969 ('List Members, Date Notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing). + Name Date Plan to Attend -Mittelstadt No Minish Yes O :.OYS.0 M., R x Wo W Yes 7. Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200' notified: By Phone Notified by Name Date or Mail (Initial) jamPs LangnPr-5530-6t11 StrPot Carl Sorenson -4615 University 55421 Joseph Dibello-5541-5th Street Cha.rl Pt4 Ymrn€rl nyT .5.4.5—T}`h stre t John Brazil -5529 -5th Street T.aijra. Vag_ Q -J nh-54 ()_ 0-n ith qi-rz,=+. Ronakd Schumacker-5601-6th Street S. The Following Board Members and interested parties were present at the Hearing: BOARD MEMBERS r - 3 - OTHER PARTIES: NAME ADDRESS 9. Opinions and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEALS: eLaz-, 10. For Above Recommendations Against Recommendations 11. Action by City Council and Date: THE MIHOTES OF THE BOARD OF APPF M MEETING OF APRIL 16, 1969 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Minish at 7:32 P.M. MMERS PRESENT: Minish, Ahonen, O'Bannon, Harris M04BERS ABSENT: 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 being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Tom Swanson was present to preeent-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 owners. 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 241 x 401 but there were no provisions for garages at this time. The 24' would be parallel with the street. Mrs. George Baker, 409 -57th Place: We have a street in front and in back of us and that doesn'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-oorner 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 small ohildren in the area a small park would go over real good. I am on the corner lot and I would enjoy seeing a stop sign out there because at night it's like a drag strip. The minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 16, 1969 Lam 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 quits 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, Petersens 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: We just platted Adams Street Addition. They made us put 90 foot lots there and here they want to put a double bungalow on a lot and one-half. The minutes of the Board of Aneals meets:—®f Aril 16, 1969 Mr.Ygarris: 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. Mr. Paulson mentioned that Mr. Sorenson referred to the next item on the agenda. MOTION by O'Bannon 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 Councill Chairw= Minish: Our minutes are submitted to the Council. This request for a. Special Use Permit would go before the Council for the final decision. Mr. Paulson: Do you gentleman go into the neighborhood to view the neighborhood to get some idea as to what the people are thinking in terms of upgrading instead of downgrading their neighborhood. I am looking at this matter on the basis of its worth to the community and to the people who live there so that they oould retain their tranquility and that it will conform aesthetically to the neighborhood. Mr. Harris: 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 cannot 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 area but I had no idea of the size of the dwelling.location on the lot or the location of g zages if any. Mr. O'Bannon: 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. Paulson: You cannot build on 40 feet if there is more land available in the old plat. WTION by Harris to. deny the request for a Special Use Permit as;we- "tom. seat " present time for the Special Use Persit as we did not have stele infbsmatiaWita 8mt .this permit. Seoonded by O'Bannon 2. .i The minutea of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 162 1969 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 vote, 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 7800 square feet. There are single family dwellings on both sides, one occupied 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 would be very unfair. The fellow didn't pay the taxes bacause he couldn't build omit. 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 plane to the meeting so that the board would know what is being done. Is this being done for you? Acting 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 in planning to do. Couldn't the City give you that•applioation? 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. Sore*sen: This particular block (Block 7) is just single dwellings. The blook-to the North has double bungalows. 3• The minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of A 11 16, 1969 The criteria which the Board of Appeals is directed to consider was read by thq 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 "yes". MOTION by Ahonen to close the public hearing. Seconded by O'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 carried unanimously. Mr. Louis Thielen was present to present his request. Mr. Thielens We have a package 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 beosuse.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 O'Bannon that the public hearing be closed.. Seconded by Ahonen. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. MOTION 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; The minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 16a 196 Pao r . 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. 4• 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 Signcrafters, 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 12' 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 Pearfe 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.and work it out. with the.Council. L; The sign is 150 square feet which includes 6" of blue sky between each structure. The minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of April 16. 1969 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 a 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. Ao*g.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 South 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. Acting Chairman Minish adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. ,Respe0tf1dlly submitted, HAZEL 0' 13RIAN Acting Secretary 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 45.281 to reduce the lot area requirement for a two family dwelling from 10,000 square feet to 7800 square feet to permit the construction of a duplex on Lot 3 and the 14 of 4, Block 7, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville the same being 5550 -6th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Tom Swanson, 3425 Coolidge Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.) i 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 TO pelaor Sm� EY . ,,y.Je'. SUBJECT.:: kgkl_U II0Ha ; tbM BONA of AMMU DATE: a 21, 1969 at simition 45-283 1 PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED 1 414 J. ... - � .. ,&&.•�". x9p �.�:�t,. a!q kin=va?. � ^t. -p w�l i.a r3,U ,> y�- FOLD DATE . v� ,� iL. SIGNEDz� "o"oo SEND WHI'L'E AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT RINK -COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY. 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 45.281 to reduce the lot area requirement for a two family dwelling from 10,000 square feet to 7800 square feet to permit the construction of a duplex on Lot 3 and the NJ of 4, Block 7, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville the same being 5550 -6th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Tom Swanson, 3425 Coolidge Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.) i 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 a (official Publimtloa, OFFICIAL NOTICE C�TY'OFFRIBLEY PUBLICHEARING BEFORE Tug TOOTICE MANYCONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Bol meet Appeals the of the City of Fri dlel City Hall at 7:90 ppmncil of the 16, 190, to consider the follow(Wednesday, April A request for a varilu°gce�of rSectior fora rndnce the lot area requirement two family dwel4ng from IO,Op[ feet to 7880 sguare feet to Permit and the Nu>��i °f a _dnP�ea_on Lot " ng UN11 oil, anics ue the same, being Bt6 Street N.E.. Fridley.' 342.4 CoolidgeCoStreet by Tom Swanson. sota.i Minneepolls, Mine - Anyone desiring to be heard wild feter. at this meeti gVe fitter may_ be heard DONALD MITI'ELSTADT — Chairman, Board of Appeah Marcd28,I8o,_TC UCNt.ns or existing buildings within a distance of 100Yfeet on both sides of a building to be -erected is not more than 6 feet greater or not more than 6 feet less than the front yard depth required for the district in which such block is located, the front yard depth for such building shall be not less than such average depth Should this difference be more than 6 feet, the Board of Appeals may vary the front yard requirement for the building. 45.28. R-1 Districts: A lot area of not less than 9,000 square feet for a dwelling is LOT AREAS REQUIRED required or hot less than 7.,500 square feet if the lot is one on a subdivision plat R-1 DISTRICT recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or on a plat approved by the City Council subsequently, provided that an area of not less than 18,000 square feet is re- quired for a lot unserved by a City sanitary sewer or an approved private, community sewage disposal system, or not less than 10,000 square feet if the lot is one on a sub- division plat recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance or on a plat approved by the City Council subse- quently. 45.281. Lot Areas Required - R-2 Districts: A lot area of not less than 7,500 R-2 DISTRICT square feet for a one -family dwelling is required. A lot area of not less than 10,000 square feet i is required for a two or three family dwelling or dwelling group. Except as to a lot or parcel contained in a plat, registered land survey or other subdivision that has been heretofore placed on record in the office of the Register of Deeds or has heretofore been approved for record by the Council of the City of Fridley, a lot area of not less than 15,000 r square feet is required for a four -family dwelling or dwelling group; and a lot area of not less than 1,500 additional square feet is required for each dwelling unit therein over four in number. 166 A single lot or parcel which is full and complete in itself and which is contained in any plat, survey or subdivision heretofore placed on record or heretofore approved for record and which lot or parcel contained sufficient area at the time of approval for use as a building site for four or more dwelling units may continue to be used for such multiple dwelling purposes, and is subject to such requirements as existed prior to this amendment. The provisions herein shall not be construed to limit further and additional requirements as may be provided by this ordinance or as may be provided by another ordinance when deemed appropriate, 45.282. Same as in R-2 Districts for each dwelling or dwelling group having four dwelling units R-3 DISTRICT or less. A lot area of not less than 1,000 additional square feet for each dwelling unit over four in number is required. However, the average square foot area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than 2,500 square feet. (Ref. 263) C-1, C -IS, C-2, C -2S, M-1 and M-2 Districts: Same C-1 AND C-2 AVE. - - i Iv �, 4C 22 Z; JOG INTE S T4 TE lJ//Y 0i1 _ s" 47 2 Zf zA 40 26 v r a 6 S 1 74 2J 1. _ C HERI 74 i y _• o �: ...� .�. s�. � � cs si rig ;'�+�5 ' 2,1 a rf yl • a 4 - ec _ •1 7D - .% h� � iL ��� tj toe P•� e i is 'PI,•'t 47 /s � _ r...Y:a �I Al --14