Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
VAR 06-07
I� G1YOE FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE October 12, 2006 Star Schween 6101 -6th Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Dear Ms. Schween: On Monday, October 9, 2006, the Fridley City Council officially denied your Variance, VAR #06- 07, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to allow the re -location of the garage on the property, legally described as Lot 19, Block 1, Upland 2nd Addition, subject to easement of record, Upland 2nd Addition, subject to 6 feet utility and drainage easement along east line, generally located at 6101 -6th Street NE. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3590. Since eIy, S t Hicko C munity Development Director SHijb cc: Variance File Sandy Stanger Stacy Stromberg Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by October 27, 2006. return., ,one with action taken. C-06-77 FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287 - TTD/TI'Y (763) 572-3534 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE October 12, 2006 Star Schween 6101 -6th Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Dear Ms. Schween: On Monday, October 9, 2006, the Fridley City Council officially denied your Variance, VAR #06- 07, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to allow the re -location of the garage on the property, legally described as Lot 19, Block 1, Upland 2nd Addition, subject to easement of record, Upland 2nd Addition, subject to 6 feet utility and drainage easement along east line, generally located at 6101 -6th Street NE. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3590. Since ely, S Hicko C munity Development Director SH/jb i cc: Fele--- Sandy Stanger Stacy Stromberg Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by October 27, 2006. Concur with action taken. C-06-77 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9.2006 PAGE 8 7. Comply wi all City Codes associated with the business, including but not limited to o side storage, parking, screening, and drainage. Seconded by Counci mber Barnette. UPON A VOIC VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION C D UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 12. Variance Request, VAR #06-07, by Star Schween, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 17.5 Feet to 8 Feet to Allow the Relocation of a Garage, Generally Located at 6101 Sixth Street N.E. (Ward 1). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner desires to rotate and move the existing garage closer to the 61St Avenue side of the property and move it so she has access from Sixth Street. In her hardship statement she said: At this time my garage faces 61St Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61st Avenue which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61s' Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them. Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, as are all the surrounding properties. It is located on the northeast corner of Sixth Street and 61St Avenue and the home was constructed in 1958 and the garage in 1970. A hard surface driveway exists off of Sixth Street and 61St Avenue to the existing garage location. It is quite a unique situation that it has two concrete driveways. A 17.5 foot side yard setback is required on a corner. The existing garage is 27 feet from the yard property line from the south side. Mr. Hickok stated although City staff had no recommendation on a similar corner lot setback reduction on Sylvan Lane, staff feels that there was enough significant difference between the two requests to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences as they see them on these two properties. The current setback of the existing homes along 61" is one of the key components here. It is clear they would be breaking new ground in putting a structure closer to 61St Avenue. The garage will have a negative impact on the property at 491 - 61" Avenue. At the Planning Commission meeting the owner of the property did speak of his concerns about the impact of this garage in the location being proposed. Finally, the amount of traffic travel on 61St Avenue, when compared to the University Avenue Service Road is quite different because 61St Avenue is a collector street, whereas, University Avenue Service Road is not. It is a neighborhood street. All the homes and garages located on 61St Street between Seventh and Fifth Streets have at least 17.5 feet of setback which complies with City Code. This setback would be potentially precedent setting for other corner lots. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2006 PAGE 7 Councilmember Billings asked if the letter that is sent will state that the special use hermit runs with the land and not with the operator or owner of the business. 7 Mr. Hickok replied that is not a standard part of the letter that goes out buyin this particular case, he would be glad to include the statute that talks about specialus permits and their application to the land. Councilmember Billings asked that it be sent by mail, return receipt Mr. Hickok said they will send it that way. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak whether there sho/matter. y concern with having these stipulations and Mr. Buzick not being present to cothe stipulations as the current property owner. Mr. Knaak replied, no, especially given the past histhe has been present and made aware of the fact. Whether he chooses to be here does Councilmember Billings stated he understands the roperty to the north either has completed or is in the process of doing some grading work to ' 'gate some of their storm water. Mr. Haluptzok replied that he was. Councilmember Billings asked if the wo had been done. Mr. Haluptzok replied, yes. MOTION by Councilmember W fe to adopt Resolution No. 2006-68 and revoke Special Use Permit, SP #03-14. Seconded b Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOT ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ANIMOUSLY. MOTION by CouncilAember Wolfe to adopt Resolution No. 2006-68 and approve Special Use Permit, SP #06-11, for Central Auto Parts to operate a junkyard in an M-1 Zoning District, generally located a 201 73 V2 Avenue N.E. with the following seven stipulations: Z bmit a complete site plan, including parking/storage areas and screening, for ffreview and approval prior to issuance of land alteration permit. bmit a complete landscaping plan, including irrigation plan, for staff review d approval prior to issuance of land alteration permit. tall first phase of grading and drainage plan (south half) by June 1, 2007 tall screening fence on south side of property by July 1, 2007 5. Install second phase of grading and drainage plan (north half) and any other required screening fence by October 1, 2007 6. Install landscaping and irrigation by June 1, 2008 FRMLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2006 PAGE 9 Mr. Hickok stated the neighboring home is located east of 491 — 61St Avenue and is accessed from 61 St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage 8 feet from the property line, will create a line of site issue for this property when backing out of their driveway. One of the concerns of the petitioner is that there is a lot of traffic on 61St and there is a lot of residential foot traffic to and from the park along that sidewalk and location of the garage would create an additional site line problem for the folks backing out of 491 - 61 St. This would then create a hazardous situation for the highly traveled 61" Avenue. Before the Commission or Council can grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code will cause undue hardship. Mr. Hickok stated City staff has not been able to identify any hardship as defined by law that would allow them to recommend anything but denial of this request. If the garage is to be moved, the hardship that may exist currently will change. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: First, the property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. This property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and garage. The current garage location is usable and accessible by either Sixth Street or 61St Avenue. The petitioner could relocate the garage to the northeast comer of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring a variance. Petitioner did express a concern about the utility easement along the east side of the property. The garage could be placed outside of the easement and even be six feet north of the garage and still set it back an adequate distance to not cause a„visibility problem or change the streetscape along 61St Avenue. You could have a small turn around in the driveway allowing her to head out onto 61St Avenue. The Planning Commission had an interesting recommendation and that is to move the garage and set it back 17.5 feet. It would allow for a distance between the house and the garage for maneuvering, extend the driveway as required, and then remove the existing driveway completely that goes out onto 61 st Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated second, the need for a variance is due to unique property conditions. There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. Petitioner's desire to relocate the garage within 8 feet of the side yard lot line on a corner lot is not a unique condition. The existing conditions on the site function properly and other options do exist that do not require a variance. Mr. Hickok stated finally, the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The Code does require the side yard setback to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the line of sight encroachment into neighboring properties. Relocating the garage to be within 8 feet of the side yard setback on a corner lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for neighboring properties by limiting their view down 61St and shortening their reaction time as the driver. Staff recommends denial of this variance because of no undue hardship, line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61” Avenue, line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property, and granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61 St Avenue. Staff recommends if this variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2006 PAGE 10 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to relocating garage. 2. Curb cut on 61" Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including boulevard area disturbed by old driveway removal, would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. Mr. Hickok stated that petitioner was not present at the meeting. Edmond Sworsky, 491 — 61" Avenue, said moving the garage would hinder his site. He said the Appeals Commission made the right decision. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to deny Variance Request, VAR #06-07, by Star Schween, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the relocation of a garage, generally located at 6101 Sixth Street N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Infoijmal Status Reports. None. ADJOURN: MOTION by Co�ncilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn. UPON A VOIC VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted Denise M. Johnson \ Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor AMC CRY of FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCT. 912006 Date: October 3, 2006 To: William Burns, City Manager 440 From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Subject: Variance Request VAR #06-07 to Reduce Side Yard Setback at 61014' St. NE Background On September 27, the Fridley Appeals Commission held a public hearing regarding variance request VAR #06-07. This variance request by the property owner, Star Schween, of the single family home at 6101— 01' Street NE is to reduce the side yard setback requirement on a corner lot from 17.5' to eight feet. The property owner desires to rotate and move the existing garage closer to the 61 St Avenue side of the property to better use the access off of 6th Street, where she also has a driveway. Her reasoning for the change is safety in getting in and out of her driveway due to the heavily used sidewalk on 60 Avenue. This variance request is being forwarded to the City Council because staff has recommended denial, the Appeals Commission recommended denial on a 2-1 vote, and the property owner to the east that would be impacted by the change is not in favor of the variance. The main reason for denial given by the Appeals Commissioners was that the petitioner does have other alternatives for moving the garage to avoid the safety concerns with sidewalk traffic. She could rotate and move the garage to other locations in her rear yard without a variance. The petitioner disclosed at the public hearing that she plans to build a six -foot -high fence around her side and back yard, which will be on the property line, as permitted by code, and will be more of a visual obstruction for her neighbor to the east than the garage set eight feet back from the property line. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, clarified at the public hearing that code requires that the corners of the fence would need to be angled for vision safety reasons. Ms. Schween stated at the hearing that several properties along 61St Avenue have fences that are not angled near a driveway. While Ms. Schween is correct in that there are violations of this code requirement on 61 st Avenue, this does not give reason for the City to approve additional hazards. The Petitioner does not want to remove the 61 st Avenue driveway, citing it is an unnecessary expense. However, from the Petitioner's description at the public hearing, it appears she plans to back out of her garage toward 61St and then drive out forward to exit her property onto 6th Street. With the addition of the fence at the property line (although code would require that it be angled 10' back next to the driveway), this is a much more dangerous means to exit her garage than the existing layout. With only eight feet of distance to the property line, she would need to back over the sidewalk in order to maneuver the turn. Staff continues to suggest a stipulation that the second driveway on 61St Avenue needs to be removed for safety reasons. The petitioner's concern about expense should not overcome concerns about public safety. In addition, there is a change in grade between the existing driveways. It appears to staff that the existing concrete driveway on 61s' will need to be reconstructed to prevent storm water runoff from sloping toward the petitioner's home. Staff is further concerned that leaving the second driveway allows for outside vehicle storage space close to the street. 37 Recommendation The Appeals Commission recommended denial of variance request VAR #06-07. Staff continues to recommend denial of this variance request, noting no hardship, safety concerns, and concerns that approval would be precedent setting. Stipulations Should the City Council choose to approve this variance request, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to re -locating garage. 2. Curb cut on 61" Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including boulevard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #06-07 September 27, 2006 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Star Schween 61016 th Street NE Fridlev MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance reducing the side yard setback on a corner lot. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 61016 1h Street Size: 10,540 sq. ft. .24 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.3. D.(2).(c)((1))requires a side yard setback of seventeen and one-half (17 %2) feet on a corner lot. Zoning History: 1958 — Lot is platted. 1958 — House constructed. 1970 — Garage constructed. Legal Description of Property: Lot 19, Block 1, Upland 2"d Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: 6th Street and 61St Avenue provide access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban lot and landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROJECT $9 The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet 8 feet to allow the re- location of her existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 6th Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61st Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6t" Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."— also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request No undue hardship. Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61 st Avenue. Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61St Avenue. CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE City Council — October 9, 2006 60 Day — October 23, 2006 (Existing Home — Picture taken from 6`° Street) Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #06-07 REQUEST The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 ft. to allow the re -location of the existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 6th Street. The petitioner's existing garage receives access from 61" Avenue, and the petitioner would like to move the garage so it receives access from 6th Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61" Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61st Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."— also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween ANALYSIS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and 61St Avenue. The lot is rectangular shaped and the house fronts on 6th Street, while the garage faces 61St Avenue. The home was constructed 1958 and the �! detached garage was constructed in 1970. The petitioner m purchased the property in October of 2005 and has since decided that she would like to turn the garage so it receives access off of 6th Street instead of 61St Avenue. A hard surface driveway exists off both 6th Street and 61St Avenue to the existing garage location. City Code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is 27 feet from the side yard property line and meets City code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to re -locate the garage on the site, which will reduce the side yard setback to 8 ft, thus the need for the variance request. Although city staff recently had "no recommendation" on a _ similar corner lot setback reduction request on Sylvan Lane, staff feels that there is enough significant difference between the two requests, to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences between the two variances, which relate to the current setback of the existing homes along 61St Avenue, the impacts the new garage setback will have on the neighboring property at 491 61St Avenue, and the amount of traffic traveled on 61St Avenue when compared to the University Avenue Service Road. All of the homes and garages located along 61St Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street have at least a 17 Y2 ft. setback, which complies with City code requirements. Moving the existing garage closer than the required setback would change the streetscape of this neighborhood as well as be precedent setting for other corner lot properties. The home located behind (east) of the subject property at 491 61St Avenue, faces and is accessed off of 61St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage to the proposed location 8 ft. from the property line would create a line of site issue for this property when backing out of their driveway. This would in turn create a hazardous situation due to the highly traveled 61St Avenue. VARIANCE HARDSHIP Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship as defined by law is: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. 2. The need for the variance is due to the conditions unique to the property and not created by actions of the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood. City Staff has not been able to identify any hardship, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. • The property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and the garage. • The current garage location is usable and accessible from either 6th Street or 61St Avenue. • The petitioner could re -locate the garage to the north-east comer of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring a variance. • Re -locating the garage on the property in a position that doesn't require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue could also be an option for the petitioner. 2. The need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. • There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. • The Petitioners desire to relocate the garage within 8 ft. of the side yard lot line on a corner lot is not a unique condition. The existing conditions on the site function properly or other options do exist that don't require a variance. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the side yard setback to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into neighboring properties. • Re -locating the garage to be within 8 ft. of the side yard setback on a corner lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for L�iJ neighboring property owners by limiting their view down 61St and shortening reaction time for drivers. • City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners whose travel will be interrupted by a car entering 61St from the driveway at 491 — 61St Avenue or from 6th St. Left — Photo of petitioner's property from 6151 Avenue Right — Photo of neighboring property to the east from 61St Avenue INURtI SIUC 5LUUUL5L;dJJe UI O 1 IAVCtIUC RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. ■ No undue hardship. ■ Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61St Avenue. ■ Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. ■ Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61St Avenue. 42 STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to re -locating garage. 2. Curb cut on 61St Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including boulevard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. a, 25.9 27.0 r i 6th S'&eetl ti NE N 0279'09" E --54-61-- Can ale w -54.61-- Canalever 1 Story Frame Goroge L9.9 y N 02' 29.6 --298 S ------------------ 0) Drainage and UNIty Easement ch --74.60-- N 00'0944" E MLA I � � I O N I O� a I I � I I N 00"09'44" E _-_- —33.00— -_; 25.9 27.0 r i 6th S'&eetl ti NE N 0279'09" E --54-61-- Can ale w -54.61-- Canalever 1 Story Frame Goroge L9.9 y N 02' 29.6 --298 S ------------------ 0) Drainage and UNIty Easement ch --74.60-- N 00'0944" E MLA CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Vos called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ken Vos Blaine Jones Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Star Schween, 6106 Sixth Street NE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 12, 2006 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #06-07, BY STAR SCHWEEN Consideration of a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the relocation of the garage on the property, generally located at 6101— 6th Street NE MOTION by Commissioner Jones to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner's existing garage receives access from 61St Avenue; and the petitioner would like to move the garage so it receives access from 6th Street. The summary of hardship submitted by petitioner reads: 45 At this time my garage faces 61" Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Avenue which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and 61St Avenue. The home was constructed in 1958, and the detached garage was constructed in 1970. A hard surface driveway currently exists off both 6th Street and 61St Avenue to the existing garage. City Code requires a 17 1/2 foot side yard setback on a corner lot. Ms. Stromberg stated although City staff recently had "no recommendation" on a similar corner variance setback reduction on Sylvan Lane, staff feels there is enough significant difference between the two requests to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences between the two variances which relate to the current setback of the existing homes along 61St Avenue: the impacts the new garage setback will have on the neighboring property at 491 61st Avenue, and the amount of traffic traveled on 61St Avenue when compared to the University Avenue Service Road which is where the variance was granted on Sylvan Lane. Ms. Stromberg stated all of the homes and garages located along 61St Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street have at least a 17 t/z foot setback which complies with City code requirements. Moving the existing garage closer than the required setback would change the streetscape of this neighborhood as well as be precedent setting for other corner lot properties. The home located behind (east) of the subject property at 4916 1 " Avenue, faces and is accessed off of 61St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage on the subject property 8 feet from the property line would create a line of site issue for the property when backing out of their driveway. This would in turn create a hazardous situation due to the highly traveled 61St Avenue. Ms. Stromberg next went through variance hardship and what it means. Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of the conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be keeping with the intent of the ordinance. City staff has not been able to identify any hardship as defined by law that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of the request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. • The property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and the garage. • The current garage location is usable and accessible from either 6th Street or 61St Avenue. • The petitioner has other options on the site that would not require a variance. She could potentially locate the garage in the northeast corner of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring the variance. • Relocating the garage on the property in a position that does not require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue could also be an option. 2. A variance to be granted based on the need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. • There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. • The petitioner's desire to relocate the garage 8 feet from the side yard lot line o a corner lot is not a unique situation. The existing conditions on the site function property and other options do exist that do not require a variance. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the side yard setback on corner lots to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into neighboring properties. • Relocating the garage to be 8 feet of the side yard setback on a corner lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for neighboring property owners by limiting their view down 61' Avenue and shortening the reaction for drivers. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends denial of this variance request because there is no undue hardship, line of site related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61St Avenue, also because of line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 60. Staff recommends, however if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to relocating the garage. 2. Curb cut on 61St Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including backyard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. The first stipulation found in their packet has been omitted. Commissioner Jones stated he was curious on the alternatives to moving the garage. On the last one, relocating the garage on the property in a position that does not require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue, he asked Ms. Stromberg to show him what she meant by that. Ms. Stromberg replied if the petitioner were to back out of her garage in her existing location, she can still move forward and go down her current driveway. The other option the City had for the petitioner to gain more room in her backyard and to be able to utilize her backyard more would be to locate the garage somewhere in the back area. That was to gain the access to the backyard that she has lost now. Commissioner Vos asked where the yellow coloring was, could the petitioner also do a slab of concrete where she could just back up that way and go out forward onto 61St Mr. Jones asked if it would be an option, instead of moving the garage so it was 8 feet, make it 17.5 feet, it is pretty close to a straight shot, and then it meets the code requirements. He asked is it 17 feet to the foundation wall, or the overhang? Ms. Stromberg replied, to the foundation wall. Star Schween, petitioner, approached and stated first of all regarding the recommendation for moving the garage, when she backs out of the driveway, the children who are going go the park because she is on that side of 61St Avenue, ride their bikes down the street and that is what she meant by the kids coming up so quickly. When they come down 61St Avenue from Fifth Street, they come flying down there. When she is backing out of her garage, it is true she can back out and turn down the 6th Street driveway, but her car is an SUV and it is already in the sidewalk. Her concern is more for the safety of the children, rather than the car traffic on there. She can get around that. Also, it is not right but the kids use her driveway as a short cut. So when they come up 6th, they come up and cut through and go up to 61St. When she is backing out of her driveway on that side obviously she is not able to see out there until she is already all the way out of the garage. Ms. Schween stated one of the first issues she had was the recommendation of the staff to put the garage in the northeast corner of the lot. Before the big storm last October, she had two big huge trees in the backyard and she was just signing the agreement to buy the house. Now there is only one tree on the back lot and it is in the northeast corner, and there is a whole line of grapevines there. Also along that property line on the east side it is the easement for the electrical wires, etc. so obviously it is going to be an issue to put a garage near there. There is only 9 feet between her home and the neighbor's on the north side and that is not enough space to put a driveway in if she faces that garage towards 6th Street. In addition, if she faces that garage going towards 61St Avenue, right on the corner is the utility pole on the boulevard that holds all the wires, including the telephone wires coming down from 61" Avenue. There is also three cables that anchor that pole into the boulevard. So there is no way she could put a driveway on that side going up the 61St Avenue side. Ms. Schween stated the line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly - traveled road on 61St Avenue, it seems they both had the same issue and came to different conclusions on that. She will be putting up a 6 -foot high privacy fence on the east side of her lot line. There is a 6 -foot high fence on the north side. She will also be continuing the fence down the 61St Street side. So she they will have a 6 -foot fence on the east and the south sides of her property. Her property line is 1 foot in from the side lot. People from the street or any direction are only going to see the 6 -foot high fence. T Ms. Schween stated regarding the line of sight issue for the neighbors east of her property, she has talked with both of them about putting up the fence and the garage issue. From the driveway to her property line, it is 30 feet from their driveway. So it is another 30 feet to the back of the garage on her property. That is a total of 60 feet from their driveway. They were actually rather pleased she was putting up a fence because they were never able to do that and it will give them more privacy. Obviously the garage would not be in the way when they are backing out of their driveway because it is 60 feet away and they are going to see a 6 -foot high fence there. Ms. Schween stated regarding the issue of setting a precedence for the other properties along 61St Avenue, she has driven down 61St Avenue, and there are 8 homes whose garages face 61" Avenue and their homes either face 6th or 7th Streets. Those homes either have less space on the side of that street where they are not going to be able to put in a garage because it is about 17.5 feet. All of those homes either have 6 -foot high privacy fences, several of them have 12 -foot or higher lilac bushes that are right along the sidewalk all the way down, and several of them have 6 -foot high fences right next to their driveways. It would cost them a fortune to do the landscaping to move their garages if they wanted to. Ms. Schween stated regarding the stipulations, she feels very fortunate because she does have a driveway on 6th Street and 61" Avenue and her 61St Avenue driveway is where her garbage is picked up. As she ages she does not want to have to lug her garbage down 96 feet. Having to walk up the driveway was not even the issue here, it is an added expense for her and is absolutely not necessary. All the other homes have access on 61" Avenue. She already has the cement in the driveway and she is really trying to do this as cost effectively as she can. All she would have to do is put up an apron and a pad for the garage. This is not an inexpensive proposition here and will probably cost about $5,000 for the pad because of the cement. She does not want to have to create any longer of a driveway. She wants to stay in Fridley, she wants this to be her last home that she buys, and she wants to improve the property. She considers this more a hazardous matter. Ms. Schween as far as changing the streetscape, it probably will but it will be keeping in line with all of the other neighbors along that whole street because if you drive down there, everyone else has 6 -foot fences or they have the lilac bushes. Commissioner Sielaff asked if she wants to keep everything on 61't9 Ms. Schween replied, yes, because it would be an unnecessary expense to take it out. Commissioner Jones asked so what she is going to do is back out of the garage and then drive out onto 61 St? Ms. Schween replied, yes, she could do that or back all the way down the driveway. The point is she can see all the way down her 6th Street driveway coming out. Commissioner Jones asked so she would maintain her curb cut on 6th Street and she would maintain the curb cut on 61 St? .• Ms. Schween replied, yes, there is really no point in changing them. Commissioner Jones asked if there was a particular reason why instead of moving 8 feet, she could not move it 17.5 feet from the property line? Ms. Schween replied, no, she could certainly do that. Commissioner Jones explained the reason he says that is then it is a non -issue. Ms. Schween stated she realizes what he is saying, and she has thought about that, but the issue is her driveway goes straight and then it goes out the side. But if she moves it 17.5 feet in, it would have to be angled because it is going to come behind the house. What she is trying to do is put it straight so it lines up with the 6th Street driveway and then it is not an issue and she does not have to add more cement to the backyard. Jonathan Condor, 6111 6th Street NE, approached and stated he lives just north of the petitioner's house. He sold the house to the petitioner and used that garage for about a year and backing out with the kids whipping back and forth, made him nervous every time he would do it. If she puts up the security fence, that means the kids coming from the east, the suddenness of their appearance is going to be increased immensely. To him that is a terrible hazard to have to put up with and if it can be alleviated, he would certainly be highly in favor of that. Also, regarding the stipulation taking away the curb cut on 61" could be a severe inconvenience. Everybody who has used that place has found you can drive into the 61St drive there, park next to the house, and unload your groceries. Edmund Swarski (sp.), 491 61St Avenue NE, approached and stated he lives on the corner of 61St. His garage is in line with the petitioner's garage. If she does this, he will not be able to see down there. Secondly, it will probably reduce the value of his house somewhat. The house on the corner across the street from him, their driveways match. When he backs out, he has to make sure they are not backing out at the same time. He would also have to watch more for the kids. In the morning there are thousands of them and they do not care where they walk. He has lived in his home for 50 years and has not hit any of them yet. He does not like to say it, but he believes it is necessary. She does have one driveway that comes off of 6th Street. If she put up the 6 -foot fence that will be another obstacle for him to contend with. MOTION by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether there was any setback requirement for a privacy fence? Ms. Stromberg replied the code requires a fence can be 7 feet on the side of the rear yard and the setback is they have to be set inside the property line. She did explain to the petitioner that -1 when she constructs the fence, she would have to angle the corner on the east property line to allow better visibility for that neighbor. Mr. Jones asked if she would have to have the same angle on her driveway or not? Ms. Stromberg replied, no, just on the corner of the property line. Ms. Schween stated all of the houses on 61St Street that do have privacy fences, etc. do not have any angling on any of them and most of them are right next to the garages. So she was a little surprised at that but it is not an issue. Ms. Stromberg stated fences do not require a permit. So a lot of times people do not call and they put up a fence and it might not be to Code standards. However, since they are aware petitioner is putting up a fence, those are the requirements. Especially in a situation like this where the neighbor from the east backs out onto 61" Avenue, it is very important they have as much visibility as they can. Commissioner Jones stated he understands that 61St Avenue is busy and the hazards little kids create walking down through there and you cannot control their behavior. However, when he is looking at this, there is the one neighbor objects to this, and sees there are some other options that might even be better or safer than this if that is the real issue. They may or may not cost more money because of the concrete. The option of moving the proposed location another 9.5 feet to the north would eliminate any need for the variance. So just from that perspective his inclination is to vote against this variance. Commissioner Sielaff stated on this particular project, the idea there is going to be a privacy fence put up anyway, he guessed he does not see the line of vision being an issue. Also, if she does not put up the fence, then the line of vision is an issue. He understands the petitioner's argument and is not totally unsympathetic towards it. He does not see any reason for the curb cut. If she is going to commit herself to going out on 6th Street, he can also see there is going to be a temptation to go out on 61" Street if that curb cut stays there. Then they are looking at potential safety issues if you have the garage and going out directly on 61St there. However, the way it is presented here, he is inclined to agree with the variance and he thinks there are enough issues there that he would like to see it go to Council. Commissioner Vos stated the only issue he has is the hardship and she does not have one. The petitioner needs to show there is no other way she can put the garage in there. MOTION by Commissioner Jones denying Variance Request, Var #06-07, by Star Schween to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the relocation of the garage on the property, generally located at 6101 — 6th Street NE. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER JONES AND CHAIRPERSON VOS VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 61 Ms. Stromberg stated the request will go before the City Council on October 9. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Ms. Stromberg stated the October 11 meeting is cancelled. 3. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, boyz�i) Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 62 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #06-07 September 27, 2006 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Star Schween 61016 th Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance reducing the side yard setback on a comer lot. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 61016 th Street Size: 10,540 sq. ft. .24 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.3.D.(2).(c)((1))requires a side yard setback of seventeen and one-half (17'/) feet on a comer lot. Zoning History: 1958 - Lot is platted. 1958 - House constructed. 1970 - Garage constructed. Legal Description of Property: Lot 19, Block 1, Upland 2nd Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: 6th Street and 61 St Avenue provide access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban lot and landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a comer lot from 17.5 feet 8 feet to allow the re- location of her existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 61h Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61St Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces thee Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concem is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concemed that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."— also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. No undue hardship. Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61St Avenue. Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. Granting this variance would be precedent settina for other properties along 61St Avenue. CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE City Council - October 9, 2006 60 Day - October 23, 2006 (Existing Home - Picture taken from 6"' Street Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #06-07 REQUEST The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 ft. to allow the re -location of the existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 6th Street. The petitioner's existing garage receives access from 61St Avenue, and the petitioner would like to move the garage so it receives access from 6th Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61St Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the a Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."– also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween ANALYSIS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and 61 st Avenue. The lot is rectangular shaped and the house fronts on 6th Street, while the garage faces 61St Avenue. The home was constructed 1958 and the detached garage was constructed in 1970. The petitioner purchased the property in October of 2005 and has since decided that she would like to turn the garage so it receives access off of 6th Street instead of 61St Avenue. A hard surface driveway exists off both 6th Street and 61St Avenue to the existing garage location. Ev— City Code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is 27 feet from the side yard property line and meets City code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to re -locate the garage on the site, which will reduce the side yard setback to 8 ft, thus the need for the variance request. H �_ Although city staff recently had "no recommendation" on a similar corner lot setback reduction request on Sylvan Lane, staff feels that there is enough significant difference between the two requests, to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences between the two variances, which relate to the current setback of the existing homes along 61St Avenue, the impacts the new garage setback will have on the neighboring property at 491 61St Avenue, and the amount of traffic traveled on 61 st Avenue when compared to the University Avenue Service Road. All of the homes and garages located along 61 st Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street have at least a 171/2 ft. setback, which complies with City code requirements. Moving the existing garage closer than the required setback would change the streetscape of this neighborhood as well as be precedent setting for other corner lot properties. The home located behind (east) of the subject property at 491 61St Avenue, faces and is accessed off of 61St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage to the proposed location 8 ft. from the property line would create a line of site issue for this property when backing out of their driveway. This would in turn create a hazardous situation due to the highly traveled 61St Avenue. VARIANCE HARDSHIP Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship as defined by law is: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. 2. 3. The need for the variance is due to the conditions unique to the property and not created by actions of the landowner. The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood. City Staff has not been able to identify any hardship, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. • The property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and the garage. • The current garage location is usable and accessible from either 6t" Street or 61 st Avenue. • The petitioner could re -locate the garage to the north-east corner of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring a variance. • Re -locating the garage on the property in a position that doesn't require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue could also be an option for the petitioner. 2. The need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. • There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. • The Petitioners desire to relocate the garage within 8 ft. of the side yard lot line on a corner lot is not a unique condition. The existing conditions on the site function properly or other options do exist that don't require a variance. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the side yard setback to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into neighboring properties. • Re -locating the garage to be within 8 ft. of the side yard setback on a corner lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for neighboring property owners by limiting their view down 61St and shortening reaction time for drivers. • City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners whose travel will be interrupted by a car entering 61St from the driveway at 491 — 61St Avenue or from 6th St. Len — rnoto or pensioners property rrum o i Hvenue Right — Photo of neighboring property to the east from 61 St Avenue 1140rtn slue streetscape ur 01 Hvenue RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. ■ No undue hardship. ■ Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61 st Avenue. ■ Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. ■ Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61St Avenue. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to re -locating garage. 2. Curb cut on 61st Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including boulevard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. 4. A hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt) driveway shall be installed to serve the garage in its new location. variance request for: Star schween 6101 6th St. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Reason for variance: I purchased my home in Oct 2005 and I have two driveways, one on 6th street and one on 61st Ave. At this time, my garage faces 61st Ave. I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th street driveway. Justification for my request: It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61st Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61st Ave is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th street. This sidewalk is used by families and children who ride their bikes to the park. Often the children are not with their parents, many times in groups or sometimes riding by themselves and they do not pay attention to their surroundings. I try to be very careful when back out of my driveway, but backing out is really hazardous and I'm concerned that one of these children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them. Even at other times of the year, whether it is winter or spring, the children walk or ride their bikes to the schools down the street. I would like to move the garage to face 6th street so when backing out of my garage, I have a clear view all the way down my driveway (it is a long driveway coming up from 6th Steet). To line up the garage with the driveway, I am asking for your approval to move the arage 8 feet in from the property line on the 61st Ave side (see drawings "This in no way impedes view from the corner of 6th Street because the garage would be in my backyard. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Kind Regards, Star Schween 71 - Page A 25.9 27.0 6th S&eq ti NE I� N 0279'09" E --- --54.61-- �� o I = I � v �a �w I Vt` v CI„ i I I � I N 00'09'44 " E 1 -__ –33.00– ----------------- / I i I 25.9 27.0 6th S&eq ti NE I� N 0279'09" E --- --54.61-- �� o I 1 �a �w I V I 1 I -Conti/ever i --I -------- 9.9, N 027, 298. — --298.,, 298. V ------------------ Drainage and Ut/11ty Easement o) --74.60-- N 00'09'44" E CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 6101 -6th Street NE. CASE NUMBER: Variance, VAR #06-07 APPLICANT: Star Schween Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting.) PURPOSE. Petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the re -location of the garage on the property. LOCATION OF 6101-6 1h Street NE. PROPERTY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION. LOT 19, BLOCK 1, UPLAND 2ND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OF RECORD, UPLAND 2ND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO 6 FEET UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG EAST LINE. DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF HEARING: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than September 20, 2006. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 763-572-3595. *PROPOSED CITY The proposed City Council meeting date for this item will be on COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 9, 2006. *This date is subject to change depending on the outcome of the Appeals Commission meeting. Please confirm City Council date prior to attending City Council meeting. (Please note residential variances, if approved by Appeals Commission do not go on to City Council only if they are denied. Commercial variances do go on to City Council weather they are approved or denied by the Appeals Commission. Mailed: September 15, 2006 CITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FR/DLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 6299 6 62622 6279 350 6252 6242 v 6205 6232 U. 6257 6200 6120 6120 l 6120 o_ I 6074 6081 6070 6071 6060 6064 6061 6050 6054 6061 6051 6040 6044 j1 -�6030 � 6034 6031 m6020 6021 [6020 60116010 `o000 ; 6001LO 6000 60TH -- 5980 I 5981 5980 .-, 5976 SOURCES Fridley Engineering Fridley GIS Anoka County GIS Map Date: September 11, 2006 6281 6280 6281 6271 6270 6271 6261 6260 6261 6251 1 6250 6251 6241 6240 6241 6280 6270 6260 6250 6240 6231 6230 6231 6230 6221 6220 6221 6220 6211�16221000 6041 6211 6210 62016201 6191 6181 6190 6180 6191 6181 6200 6190 6180 6171 6170 6171 6161 6151 6141 6170 6161 6160 6160 6151 6150 1 6150 6141 6140 6140 6131 6130 6120 6131 6121 6111 6130 6121 6120 6111 6110 6110 491 6101 6100 O N N Cl) Cho N m O N M Co tq to to Wn tp 0 to CO Co 0 COMMONS PARK 6100 61 ST AVE 6071 1 6061 6070 1 6060 601 6071 6070 COM S 6100 61 ST AVE 6071 1 6061 6070 1 6060 6071 6070 COM S UNITY EDU N I OR CENTER ATION/ sosl Soso 6051 6041 050 6040 T6031 6051 6050 6041 6040 6031 6030 6030 6020 6021 6021 6020 6011 6011 6010 c o fO 6005 6001 6000 5981 5980 1 11 5981 1 5980 Variance Request: VAR #06-07 Petitioner: Star Schween 6101 6th Street STEINERT JAMES E & DELORES MIRANDA OSCAR & LETICIA CURRENT RESIDENT 6150 7TH ST NE 6140 7TH STREET NE 6140 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BLAISDELL ARTHUR J & ALICE WALDHAUSER LAWRENCE J & M D MOUA VANG NENG & PHOUA YANG 6130 7TH ST NE 6120 7TH ST NE 6110 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SWORSKY E A & SELINA TRUSTEES HOUGEN M JAMES & MIRIAM E MARTIN GARY LEE & MAXINE G 49161 ST AVE NE 6151 6TH ST NE 6141 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 WILLIAMS DOUGLAS R & ELLEN L BANHOLZER JOHN F & PHYLLIS MCCONVILLE GILES R & JOANNE 6131 6TH ST NE 6121 6TH ST NE 6111 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 MCCONVILLE SELIN STANLEY A & MERADIE J JANDRO 6101 6TH ST NE 6150 6TH ST NE 6140 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 MIRANDA-VARGAS OSCAR, CADENA L ELTGROTH DONALD J & SHARON SHERMAN JEFFREY D 6130 6TH ST NE 6120 6TH ST NE 6110 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 HUSTVET DEREK KLANDERUD CRYSTAL D H & PAUL S AGOSTINO DAVID W & STACEY E 6100 6TH ST NE 6101 5TH ST NE 6111 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DUFRESNE PATRICIA SAEFKE JAMES T & BARBARA E KOESTER HENRY J JR & ELAINE 6121 5TH ST NE 6131 5TH ST NE 6141 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 IND SCHOOL DISTRICT #14 CURRENT RESIDENT FRIDLEY CITY OF 6000 W MOORE LAKE DR 6249 W MOORE LAKE DR NE 6431 DNI,*ERSITYAVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEYMN 55432-0000 KETZ JASON VENTURA G & SANCHEZ A EDWARDS RICHARD V & ARDYCE 6070 7TH ST NE 6060 7TH ST NE 6050 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 HATTEN EARL G & CHARLENE A EHLERT JAMES H FREICHELS JAMES D & KATHLEEN J 6040 7TH ST NE 6041 6TH ST NE 6051 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 STONE DONNA M 6061 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 NESS ROBERT E & SHARON K 6060 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 GANTNER RYAN S & SARA L 6041 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 BORSKE BETTY J 6071 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 COOPER DAVID CHARLES 6071 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 LARSON DEREK W & MERRICK A L 6050 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SCARCELLA DOMINICK M 6051 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 JENSEN ELEANOR M 6070 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DURAND JON R & TRACY L 6040 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SEVERSON GREGORY HOWARD 6061 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 Arm CiiYOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287 - TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534 September 6, 2006 Star Schween 6101 6th Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Dear Ms. Schween: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 15 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a'variance on August 25, 2006. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete. Your Variance application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting on September 27, 2006 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue. If your variance application needs to be reviewed by the City Council, the meeting will be held on October 9, 2006 at 7:30 in the City Council Chambers. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3595. Sincerely, Stacy t mberg Planner C-06-69 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Vos called the Appeals Commi ion meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ken Vos Blaine Jc Brad Sie: Members Absent: Larry Others Present: SStoy Stromberg, City Planner W Schween, 6106 Sixth Street NE July 12, 2006 MOTION by fLommissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the minutes as presented. / UPON A /UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #06-07, BY STAR SCHWEEN Consideration of a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the relocation of the garage on the property, generally located at 6101— 6th Street NE MOTION by Commissioner Jones to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner's existing garage receives access from 61St Avenue; and the petitioner would like to move the garage so it receives access from 6th Street. The summary of hardship submitted by petitioner reads: At this time my garage faces 61St Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Avenue which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R -1, -Single Family, as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and 61St Avenue. The home was constructed in 1958, and the detached garage was constructed in 1970. A hard surface driveway currently exists off both 6th Street and 61St Avenue to the existing garage. City Code requires a 17 1/2 foot side yard setback on a corner lot. Ms. Stromberg stated although City staff recently had "no recommendation" on a similar corner variance setback reduction on Sylvan Lane, staff feels there is enough significant difference between the two requests to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences between the two variances which relate to the current setback of the existing homes along 61St Avenue: the impacts the new garage setback will have on the neighboring property at 491 61st Avenue, and the amount of traffic traveled on 61St Avenue when compared to the University Avenue Service Road which is where the variance was granted on Sylvan Lane. Ms. Stromberg stated all of the homes and garages located along 61" Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street have at least a 17 t/2 foot setback which complies with City code requirements. Moving the existing garage closer than the required setback would change the streetscape of this neighborhood as well as be precedent setting for other comer lot properties. The home located behind (east) of the subject property at 491 61St Avenue, faces and is accessed off of 61St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage on the subject property 8 feet from the property line would create a line of site issue for the property when backing out of their driveway. This would in turn create a hazardous situation due to the highly traveled 61St Avenue. Ms. Stromberg next went through variance hardship and what it means. Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of the conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be keeping with. the intent of the ordinance. City staff has not been able to identify any hardship as defined by law that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of the request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. • The property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and the garage. • The current garage location is usable and accessible from either 6t" Street or 61St Avenue. 2 The petitioner has other options on the site that would not require a variance. She could potentially locate the garage in the northeast corner of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring the variance. Relocating the garage on the property in a position that does not require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue could also be an option. 2. A variance to be granted based on the need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. • There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. • The petitioner's desire to relocate the garage 8 feet from the side yard lot line o a comer lot is not a unique situation. The existing conditions on the site function property and other options do exist that do not require a variance. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the side yard setback on comer lots to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into neighboring properties. • Relocating the garage to be 8 feet of the side yard setback on a comer lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for neighboring property owners by limiting their view down 61" Avenue and shortening the reaction for drivers. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends denial of this variance request because there is no undue hardship, line of site related to the new location of the .garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61" Avenue, also because of line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61St. Staff recommends, however if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to relocating the garage. 2. Curb cut on 61St Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including backyard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. The first stipulation found in their packet has been omitted. Commissioner Jones stated he was curious on the alternatives to moving the garage. On the last one, relocating the garage on the property in a position that does not require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61St Avenue, he asked Ms. Stromberg to show him what she meant by that. Ms. Stromberg replied if the petitioner were to back out of her garage in her existing location, she can still move forward and go down her current driveway. The other option the City had for the petitioner to gain more room in her backyard and to be able to utilize her backyard more would be to locate the garage somewhere in the back area. That was to gain the access to the backyard that she has lost now. Commissioner Vos asked where the yellow coloring was, could the petitioner also do a slab of concrete where she could just back up that way and go out forward onto 61St Mr. Jones asked if it would be an option, instead of moving the garage so it was 8 feet, make it 17.5 feet, it is pretty close to a straight shot, and then it meets the code requirements. He asked is it 17 feet to the foundation wall, or the overhang? Ms. Stromberg replied, to the foundation wall. Star Schween, petitioner, approached and stated first of all regarding the recommendation for moving the garage, when she backs out of the driveway, the children who are going go the park because she is on that side of 61" Avenue, ride their bikes down the street and that is what she meant by the kids coming up so quickly. When they come down 61St Avenue from Fifth Street, they come flying down there. When she is backing out of her garage, it is true she can back out and turn down the 6`h Street driveway, but her car is an SUV and it is already in the sidewalk. Her concern is more for the safety of the children, rather than the car traffic on there. She can get around that. Also, it is not right but the kids use her driveway as a short cut. So when they come up 6h, they come up and cut through and go up to 61S`. When she is backing out of her driveway on.that side obviously she is not able to see out there until she is already all the way out of the garage. Ms. Schween stated one of the first issues she had was the recommendation of the staff to put the garage in the northeast corner of the lot. Before the big storm last October, she had two big huge trees in the backyard and she was just signing the agreement to buy the house. Now there is only one tree on the back lot and it is in the northeast corner, and there is a whole line of grapevines there. Also along that property line on the east side it is the easement for the electrical wires, etc. so obviously it is going to be an issue to put a garage near there. There is only 9 feet between her home and the neighbor's on the north side and that is not enough space to put a driveway in if she faces that garage towards Ob Street. In addition, if she faces that garage going towards 61St Avenue, right on the comer is the utility pole on the boulevard that holds all the wires, including the telephone wires coming down from 6 Vt Avenue. There is also three cables that anchor that pole into the boulevard. So there is no way she could put a driveway on that side going up the 61St Avenue side. Ms. Schween stated the line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly - traveled road on 61" Avenue, it seems they both had the same issue and came to different conclusions on that. She will be putting up a 6 -foot high privacy fence on the east side of her lot line. There is a 6 -foot high fence on the north side. She will also be continuing the fence down the 61St Street side. So she they will have a 6 -foot fence on the east and the south sides of her property. Her property line is 1 foot in from the side lot. People from the street or any direction are only going to see the 6 -foot high fence. 4 Ms. Schween stated regarding the line of sight issue for the neighbors east of her property, she has talked with both of them about putting up the fence and the garage issue. From the driveway to her property line, it is 30 feet from their driveway. So it is another 30 feet to the back of the garage on her property. That is a total of 60 feet from their driveway. They were actually rather pleased she was putting up a fence because they were never able to do that and it will give them more privacy. Obviously the garage would not be in the way when they are backing out of their driveway because it is 60 feet away and they are going to see a 6 -foot high fence there. Ms. Schween stated regarding the issue of setting a precedence for the other properties along 61" Avenue, she has driven down 61' Avenue, and there are 8 homes whose garages face 61" Avenue and their homes either face 6t' or 7t' Streets. Those homes either have less space on the side of that street where they are not going to be able to put in a garage because it is about 17.5 feet. All of those homes either have 6 -foot high privacy fences, several of them have 12 -foot or higher lilac bushes that are right along the sidewalk all the way down, and several of them have 6 -foot high fences right next to their driveways. It would cost them a fortune to do the landscaping to move their garages if they wanted to. Ms. Schween stated regarding the stipulations, she feels very fortunate because she does have a driveway on 6h Street and 61' Avenue and her 61" Avenue driveway is where her garbage is picked up. As she ages she does not want to have to lug her garbage down 96 feet. Having to walk up the driveway was not even the issue here, it is an added expense for her and is absolutely not necessary. All the other homes have access on 61't Avenue. She already has the cement in the driveway and she is reallyl*ing to do this as cost effectively as she can. All she would have to do is put up an apron and a pad for the garage. This is not an inexpensive proposition here and will probably cost about $5,000 for the pad because of the cement. She does not want to have to create any longer of a driveway. She wants to stay in Fridley, she wants this to be her last home that she buys, and she wants to improve the property. She considers this more a hazardous matter. Ms. Schween as far as changing the streetscape, it probably will but it will be keeping in line with all of the other neighbors along that whole street because if you drive down there, everyone else has 6 -foot fences or they have the lilac bushes. Commissioner Sielaff asked if she wants to keep everything on 61 t? Ms. Schween replied, yes, because it would be an unnecessary expense to take it out. Commissioner Jones asked so what she is going to do is back out of the garage and then drive out onto 61 s`? Ms. Schween replied, yes, she could do that or back all the way down the driveway. The point is she can see all the way down her 6t' Street driveway coming out. Commissioner Jones asked so she would maintain her curb cut on 6'h Street and she would maintain the curb cut on 61"? 5 Ms. Schween replied, yes, there is really no point in changing them. Commissioner Jones asked if there was a particular reason why instead of moving 8 feet, she could not move it 17.5 feet from the property line? Ms. Schween replied, no, she could certainly do that. Commissioner Jones explained the reason he says that is then it is a non -issue. Ms. Schween stated she realizes what he is saying, and she has thought about that, but the issue is her driveway goes straight and then it goes out the side. But if she moves it 17.5 feet in, it would have to be angled because it is going to come behind the house. What she is trying to do is put it straight so it lines up with the 6th Street driveway and then it is not an issue and she does not have to add more cement to the backyard. Jonathan Condor, 6111 6th Street NE, approached and stated he lives just north of the petitioner's house. He sold the house to the petitioner and used that garage for about a year and backing out with the kids whipping back and forth, made him nervous every time he would do it. If she puts up the security fence, that means the kids coming from the east, the suddenness of their appearance is going to be increased immensely. To him that is a terrible hazard to have to put up with and if it can be alleviated, he would certainly be highly in favor of that. Also, regarding the stipulation taking away the curb cut on 61" could be a severe inconvenience. Everybody who has used that place has found you can drive into the 61St drive there, park next to the house, and unload your groceries. Edmund Swarski (sp.), 491 61St Avenue NE, approached and stated he lives on the corner of 61St. His garage is in line with the petitioner's garage. If she does this, he will not be able to see down there. Secondly, it will probably reduce the value of his house somewhat. The house on the comer across the street from him, their driveways match. When he backs out, he has to make sure they are not backing out at the same time. He would also have to watch more for the kids. In the morning there are thousands of them and they do not care where they walk. He has lived in his home for 50 years and has not hit any of them yet. He does not like to say it, but he believes it is necessary. She does have one driveway that comes off of 6t' Street. If she put up the 6 -foot fence that will be another obstacle for him to contend with. MOTION by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether there was any setback requirement for a privacy fence? Ms. Stromberg replied the code requires a fence can be 7 feet on the side of the rear yard and the setback is they have to be set inside the property line. She did explain to the petitioner that Z when she constructs the fence, she would have to angle the corner on the east property line to allow better visibility for that neighbor. Mr. Jones asked if she would have to have the same angle on her driveway or not? Ms. Stromberg replied, no, just on the comer of the property -line. Ms. Schween stated all of the houses on 61" Street that do have privacy fences, etc. do not have any angling on any of them and most of them are right next to the garages. So she was a little surprised at that but it is not an issue. Ms. Stromberg stated fences do not require a permit. So a lot of times people do not call and they put up a fence and it might not be to Code standards. However, since they are aware petitioner is putting up a fence, those are the requirements. Especially in a situation like this where the neighbor from the east backs out onto 61" Avenue, it is very important they have as much visibility as they can. Commissioner Jones stated he understands that 61' Avenue is busy and the hazards little kids create walking down through there and you cannot control their behavior. However, when he is looking at this, there is the one neighbor objects to this, and sees there are some other options that might even be better or safer than this if that is the real issue. They may or may not cost more money because of the concrete. The option of moving the proposed location another 9.5 feet to the north would eliminate any need for the variance. So just from that perspective his inclination is to vote against this variance. Commissioner Sielaff stated on this particular project, the idea there is going to be a privacy fence put up anyway, he guessed he does not see the line of vision being an issue. Also, if she does not put up the fence, then the line of vision is an issue. He understands the petitioner's argument and is not totally unsympathetic towards it. He does not see any reason for the curb cut. If she is going to commit herself to going out on 6t' Street, he can also see there is going to be a temptation to go out on 61" Street if that curb cut stays there. Then they are looking at potential safety issues if you have the garage and going out directly on 61s` there. However, the way it is presented here, he is inclined to agree with the variance and he thinks there are enough issues there that he would like to see it go to Council. Commissioner Vos stated the only issue he has is the hardship and she does not have one. The petitioner needs to show there is no other way she can put the garage in there. MOTION by Commissioner Jones denying Variance Request, Var #06-07, by Star Schween to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the relocation of the garage on the property, generally located at 6.101 — 6t' Street NE. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER JONES AND CHAIRPERSON VOS VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 7 Ms. Stromberg stated the request will go before the City Council on October 9. 2. Ms. Stromberg stalpd the October 11 meeting is cancelled. 3. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissio er Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON VOS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED T 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 0 3 r CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2006,7:30 P.M. LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 12, 2006 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #06-07, BY STAR SCHWEEN Consideration of a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a comer lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the re -location of the garage on the property, generally located at 6101-6t' Street NE. © VIA a �iV \s VVA a 2. UPDATP�NN� LANNING COM SSI�N & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: �1;n.. (�Iw� c 3. OTHER BUSINESS: u,ppYOVC ADJOURNMENT: "a — // F-/. /1J-��,� 0 kt & 11 1wt, M, 104 C'0 w0vt,loW14 V\) ""'G b In l ��� I Vol � t L ct;c F CAo jujk ort '^-- ktobt&e pooh z5�-c�. c OIL l'oE{--/ ✓e �ilJ 18c-Gey/off 6,4 /SGlz��6�5 %�C �2 D liC OF `1 G nLv/ ve, �� fangse ol hl ® n oY 8krlun/ Oil - CIO `�Gt,rYl e <S /�/✓�.�.�/ oy1 Lt71'1-fest � � ® � � e e�-!� e, � f CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING J U LY 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Lary Kuechle, Blaine Jones and Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Ken Vos and Ellard Breisemeister Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Jeff Ranweiler, 6300 Monroe Street APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 24, 2006 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST. VAR #06-06, BY JEFF RANWEILER Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on the comer lot from 17.5 feet to 9.75 feet to recognize an existing non -conforming setback of the attached single -stall garage and to convert the existing attached garage. The petitioner is also requesting a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for an accessory structure which opens to the street from 25 feet to 19.06 feet to recognize the existing non- conforming setback of his detached garage which is located in the rear of the yard of the subject property. The recognition of these non -conformities is required prior to issuance of a building permit for the conversion of the existing garage into living space. Ms. Stromberg stated the summary of hardship submitted by the petitioner reads, "I am submitting this proposal to convert an attached garage into living space. Currently, the garage does not meet the Code of the City of Fridley. My proposal for the living space conversion will not change the structure of the home and garage in any way. Because I am on a comer lot, the current driveway is in a very dangerous location. When backing out of my driveway, one must be aware of traffic coming from three different directions which creates a major hazard. The detached garage is positioned in a much safer location and is utilized more often because of its location. It, however, doesn't meet setback codes of Fridley. Again, this structure was built in the 1970's and existed when I moved into the home. I would like to also request a variance for the detached garage so that it complies with setback codes of the City of Fridley. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family as are all surrounding properties and is located on the comer of Monroe and 63`d Avenue. The lot is rectangular shaped with the house fronting on Monroe Street. The existing home was constructed in 1956 with the attached single -stall garage being constructed in 1959. The detached, double -car garage in the rear yard of the property was constructed in 1968. City code requires a minimum side yard setback of 17.5 feet for all structures on a comer lot in the R-1 Single Family zoning district. It also requires a side yard setback of 25 feet for accessory structures which open to the street. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking the two variance requests tonight. Ms. Stromberg stated it appears that both the attached garage and the detached garage were non -conforming at the time they were built and they were deficient in meeting setback requirements at the time of construction. Recognition of these non -conformities is required prior to the petitioner converting the existing attached garage into living space. The petitioner plans on converting the existing single stall into living space. The conversion has already started to take place. However, a stop order has been issued by our Building Department to ensure that construction inside the structure has been stopped until the variance could be obtained. The petitioner also plans to remove the existing driveway to the single -stall attached garage in the front yard to alleviate any further danger or confusion. A detached garage in the rear yard of the property will provide the vehicle parking space and storage space needed for the property owner. City staff has received two letters of support from neighboring property owners, one that is included in their packets and one that was received today in the mail. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this variance request as the variance simply recognizes pre-existing conditions, converting the use from accessory to living space will have little impact on neighboring properties, and approving these variances should not set a precedent for undeveloped lots in the future. City staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to continued conversion of the garage space to living space. 2. Petitioner shall remove existing hard surface driveway to the attached single stall garage and restore curb and re-establish green area and landscaping in the front yard. Petitioner shall also comply with the vision safety requirements for the comer of the lot. Commissioner Jones asked what are the vision safety requirements? Ms. Stromberg replied that she put diagram in their packet for specifics. The requirements are when you measure on the comer of the lot, you have to measure back both directions 40 feet and then draw a line between those two 40 ft. points. Within that triangular area you cannot have any landscaping materials that are higher than 30 inches. Commissioner Jones asked is that from the corner of the lot or the comer from the curb comer? Ms. Stromberg replied the curb corner. Chairperson Kuechle asked if they need to put a date on the stipulation as to when the driveway has to be removed? Ms. Stromberg replied, that that would be fine, whatever date the Commission felt was fair. She believes in the past they have done a year. Commissioner Jones asked so when the City states the petitioner has to restore the curb, there is a cutout there, they put in a regular curb? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Chairperson Kuechle asked if the petitioner was aware they can hire the City's contractor? And actually that is a pretty good deal. When he had his driveway put in and he told his contractor the price the City quoted him, and the contractor stated he could not do it for that amount. He asked the petitioner if he had anything to add? Jeff Ranweiler, petitioner, approached and stated no. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive letters from neighbors, Norlan Lee, 6463 63`d Avenue NE and also Richard and Muriel Vongaard at 6321 Monroe Street who had no objections to the variance request. Seconded by Commissioner Jones. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOITE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff to approve Variance Request, VAR #06-06, by Jeff Ranweiler, with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to continued conversion of the garage space to living space. 2. Petitioner shall remove existing hard surface driveway to the attached single stall garage and restore curb and re-establish green area and landscaping in the front yard within one year of approval of this variance request. Petitioner shall also comply with the vision safety requirements for the comer of the lot. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 3. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg reminded the Commission their July 25, 2006 and August 9, 2006 meetings are cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 3 4 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #06-07 September 27, 2006 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Star Schween 6101 6th Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance reducing the side yard setback on a comer lot. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 6101 6th Street Size: 10,540 sq. ft. .24 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.3.D.(2).(c)((1))requires a side yard setback of seventeen and one-half (17'/) feet on a comer lot. Zoning History: 1958 — Lot is platted. 1958 — House constructed. 1970 — Garage constructed. Legal Description of Property: Lot 19, Block 1, Upland 2"d Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: 6th Street and 61" Avenue provide access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban lot and landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a comer lot from 17.5 feet 8 feet to allow the re- location of her existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 a Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61st Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61st Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61st Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."— also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. No undue hardship. Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61st Avenue. Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. Granting this variance would be precedent setting for otherroe ' I fr'Ist Avvenue. CITY COUNCI CTION/ 60 DAY DA City Cou cil — October 9, 2006 60 Day (Existing Home — Picture taken from 6"' Street) Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg 0 VAR #06-07 REQUEST The petitioner, Star Schween is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 ft. to allow the re -location of the existing garage on her property which is located at 6101 6th Street. The petitioner's existing garage receives access from 61St Avenue, and the petitioner would like to move the garage so it receives access from 6th Street. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "At this time my garage faces 61St Avenue and I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. It is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61St Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61St Avenue is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7t`' Street. I try to be very careful when backing out of my driveway, but it really is hazardous and I'm concerned that one of the children will come down the street so quickly that I will not see them."— also see attached hardship statement - Star Schween ANALYSIS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and 61St Avenue. The lot is rectangular shaped and the house fronts on 6th Street, while the garage faces 61 st Avenue. The home was constructed 1958 and the detached garage was constructed in 1970. The petitioner purchased the property in October of 2005 and has since decided that she would like to turn the garage so it receives access off of 6th Street instead of 61 st Avenue. A hard surface driveway exists off both 6th Street and 61stAvenue to the existing garage location. City Code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is 27 feet from the side yard property line and meets City code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to re -locate the garage on the site, which will reduce the side yard setback to 8 ft, thus the need for the variance request. III � I® II Although city staff recently had "no recommendation" on a similar corner lot setback reduction request on Sylvan Lane, staff feels that there is enough significant difference between the two requests, to recommend denial of this request. There are three clear differences between the two variances, which relate to the current setback of the existing homes along 61 st Avenue, the impacts the new garage setback will have on the neighboring property at 491 61St Avenue, and the amount of traffic traveled on 61St Avenue when compared to the University Avenue Service Road. All of the homes and garages located along 61St Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street have at least a 17'/ ft. setback, which complies with City code requirements. Moving the existing garage closer than the required setback would change the streetscape of this neighborhood as well as be precedent setting for other corner lot properties. The home located behind (east) of the subject property at 491 61St Avenue, faces and is accessed off of 61St Avenue. Relocating the existing garage to the proposed location 8 ft. from the property line would create a line of site issue for this property when backing out of their driveway. This would in turn create a hazardous situation due to the highly traveled 61St Avenue. VARIANCE HARDSHIP Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of conditions unique to the property and that if the variance is granted it will be keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship as defined by law is: 1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the 2. 0 code. The need for the variance is due to the conditions unique to the property and not created by actions of the landowner. The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood. City Staff has not been able to identify any hardship, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of hardship and developed the following analysis: The property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the requirements of the code. • The property in its current condition is being used to accommodate the house and the garage. • The current garage location is usable and accessible from either 6t" Street or 61St Avenue. • The petitioner could re -locate the garage to the north-east corner of the lot which would increase the usable space in the rear yard without requiring a variance. • Re -locating the garage on the property in a position that doesn't require a variance and utilizing a driveway design to accommodate turning around before entering 61 st Avenue could also be an option for the petitioner. 2. The need for the variance is due to unique property conditions. • There are no physical characteristics that would deem this site as having unique property conditions. • The Petitioners desire to relocate the garage within 8 ft. of the side yard lot line on a corner lot is not a unique condition. The existing conditions on the site function properly or other options do exist that don't require a variance. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • The code requires the side yard setback to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into neighboring properties. • Re -locating the garage to be within 8 ft. of the side yard setback on a corner lot would change the streetscape of the neighborhood and would affect visibility of motoring traffic. It would also create a hazardous situation for neighboring property owners by limiting their view down 61st and shortening reaction time for drivers. • City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners whose travel will be interrupted by a car entering 61st from the driveway at 491 — 61 st Avenue or from Gtr, St. Right — Photo of neighboring property to the east from 61 ' Avenue 1-40rnf slue sueeisaape of o 1 /Avenue RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. ■ No undue hardship. ■ Line of sight related to the new location of the garage and the highly traveled roadway on 61 st Avenue. ■ Line of site for the neighbors east of the subject property. ■ Granting this variance would be precedent setting for other properties along 61st Avenue. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to re -locating garage. 2. Curb cut on 61St Avenue would be removed and replaced with raised curbing per City specifications at property owner's expense. 3. Landscape, including boulevard area disturbed by old driveway removal would be restored within 30 days of completion of garage relocation. 4. A hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt) driveway shall be installed to serve the garage in its new location. 25.9 270 T- 1 6th Sty�eet ti NE I CII N 02'19'09" E -- Slip --�-- I � I I I N 00'0944" E , -33.00- � / I 25.9 270 T- 1 6th Sty�eet ti NE I CII N 02'19'09" E -- Slip --�-- 1 I I � I 1 I I I 1 1 , - Can ti/e ver I I � I 9.9 N 027 298. --298.; ------------------ 0) Drainage and UNIty Easement OI --74.60-- N 00'0944" E CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 572-3592 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs (certificate of survey required for submittal, see attached) Address: w Property Identification Number: Legal Description: Loth_ Block --Tract/Adi Current Zoning: Reason for Variance: Square Footage/acreage: J C " . — --�. 4— a-• 1. ➢ 1l d'\ r V r G A ". . !✓ I Have you operated a b siness in a city which required a business license? Yes No _ If Yes, which City? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing.) ADDRESS:—Ca-1-6 I W�l U, i:7 - DAYTIME PHONE: /n 1, .34.2- 1.1c,�AC SIGNATURE/DATE: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: S MO o QL 5 �� d i. &R -r ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: Section of City Code: FEES Fee: $ 0 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee 250.00 .. r residential properties: �>6— Receipt #: Applica on Number: VM c&- Scheduled Appeals Commissi n Date: Scheduled City Council Date: I';(�' CD o 0- (12 10 Day ApplicationCo plete Notification Date �o (,a 60 Day Date: 0 C TTS ej'-- :� C Received By: CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 6101-69' Street NE. CASE NUMBER: Variance, VAR #06-07 APPLICANT. Star Schween Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting.) PURPOSE. Petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 8 feet to allow the re -location of the garage on the property. LOCATION OF 6101 — 6th Street NE. PROPERTY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 19, BLOCK 1, UPLAND 2ND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OF RECORD, UPLAND 2ND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO 6 FEET UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG EAST LINE. DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF HEARING: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than September 20, 2006. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 763-572-3595. *PROPOSED CITY The proposed City Council meeting date for this item will be on COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 9, 2006. *This date is subject to change depending on the outcome of the Appeals Commission meeting. Please confirm City Council date prior to attending City Council meeting. (Please note residential variances, if approved by Appeals Commission do not go on to City Council only if they are denied. Commercial variances do go on to City Council weather they ar approved or denied by the Appeals Commission. Mailed: September 15, 2006 CITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 17 FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 6281 i 6280 621 6280 c N w63RDAVE LO u` L in 6299 6� 274 j 6271 6.270 6271 6270 ' 6262 6261 6260 6261 6260 i L,a;kir 6279 350 6252 6251 6250 6251 6250 1 1 6242 / 6241 , 6240 6241 6240 cit V� n 41 `Id �5 0tit� 6232Z 231 6230 Z -t CSM�4�21IYI"7' i _s� < 6231 6230 6205 20 Cn6221 62 �x : 1 6220 � 4 6211 6210 6211 62103' �--� --I� �i .—� l 6200 6201 i 6200 62 1010 6200 �h1 g 6257 1 819 " 0 �6190 4 6180 681 61806181 �47 ' 6171 i 8170 6171 6170 U �rti of �� s't Myy a��' 4, � rtw 3 s .r+M 6161 6160 r =a �, .r�' M1 -' r' 6161 6160 E ; � f yi S. , a J� v `, Ff q. .'�.. 0 6151 61506120 6151 615 t F 15 a 6100 .. 6120 ' 6141 6140 6141 6120 6131 6130 1 6131 6130 }` 6121 6120 611 21 6120 rye ..� '+"fid 6111 6110 1 6111 6110` �' „�.�'so;r°" H' CO I',— i, 6100 491 ins r ,;• ° �'� . a t s;: _ 61 ST AVE 6074 l 6081 6070 ` 60716070--- 6071 6070 to 6064 6071 6060 6061 6060 6061 6060 = J 1 6061 6050 COMKI UNITY EDUg'ATION/ 1�- 6051 6051 so50 SENIOR CENTER –=+ i 6054 !--�---!. � 6050 6061 --J 6051 6040 ! 6 �i--� 6041 6041 6040 1 -60s� 6041 — 6040 i 1�— F 6031 6030 j 6031 6030 031 6030 1 i 6034 6020J 6021 6020 6021 6020 6021 to 6011 6011 6010 6011 c 6011 6040 C, tO 6000 ; 6001 6000 6005 v 6001 6000 60TH AVE -_— 5980 5981 ' 5980 ; 5981g 5981 U?5980 �r 5976 i—i—; SOURCES N Fridley Engineering Variance Request: VAR #06-07Frid Anoika ey County GIS Petitioner: Star Schween WGIS E 6101 6th Street S Map Date: September 11, 2006 STEINERT JAMES E & DELORES MIRANDA OSCAR & LETICIA CURRENT RESIDENT 6150 7TH ST NE 6140 7TH STREET NE 6140 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BLAISDELL ARTHUR J & ALICE WALDHAUSER LAWRENCE J & M D MOUA YANG NENG & PHOUA YANG 6130 7TH ST NE 6120 7TH ST NE 6110 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SWORSKY E A & SELINA TRUSTEES HOUGEN M JAMES & MIRIAM E MARTIN GARY LEE & MAXINE G 49161 ST AVE NE 6151 6TH ST NE 6141 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 WILLIAMS DOUGLAS R & ELLEN L BANHOLZER JOHN F & PHYLLIS MCCONVILLE GILES R & JOANNE 6131 6TH ST NE 6121 6TH ST NE 6111 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 MCCONVILLE SELIN STANLEY A & MERADIE J JANDRO 6101 6TH ST NE 6150 6TH ST NE 6140 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 MIRANDA-VARGAS OSCAR, CADENA L ELTGROTH DONALD J & SHARON SHERMAN JEFFREY D 6130 6TH ST NE 6120 6TH ST NE 6110 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 HUSTVET DEREK KLANDERUD CRYSTAL D H & PAUL S AGOSTINO DAVID W & STACEY E 6100 6TH ST NE 6101 5TH ST NE 6111 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DUFRESNE PATRICIA SAEFKE JAMES T & BARBARA E KOESTER HENRY J JR & ELAINE 6121 5TH ST NE 6131 STH ST NE 6141 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 IND SCHOOL DISTRICT #14 CURRENT RESIDENT FRIDLEY CITY OF 6000 W MOORE LAKE DR 6249 W MOORE LAKE DR NE 6431 bMrVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLE' MN 5543240000 KETZ JASON VENTURA G & SANCHEZ A EDWARDS RICHARD V & ARDYCE 6070 7TH ST NE 6060 7TH ST NE 6050 7TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 IHATTEN EARL G & CHARLENE A EHLERT JAMES H FREICHELS JAMES D & KATHLEEN J 6040 7TH ST NE 6041 6TH ST NE 6051 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 STONE DONNA M 6061 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 NESS ROBERT E & SHARON K 6060 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 GANTNER RYAN S & SARA L 6041 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 BORSKE BETTY J 6071 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 COOPER DAVID CHARLES 6071 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 LARSON DEREK W & MERRICK A L 6050 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SCARCELLA DOMINICK M 6051 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 JENSEN ELEANOR M 6070 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DURAND JON R & TRACY L 6040 6TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SEVERSON GREGORY HOWARD 6061 5TH ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 '1"=, G7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534 September 6, 2006 Star Schween 6101 6t' Street NE Fridley MN 55432 Dear Ms. Schween: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 15 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a* variance on August 25, 2006. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete. Your Variance application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting on September 27, 2006 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue. If your variance application needs to be reviewed by the City Council, the meeting will be held on October 9, 2006 at 7:30 in the City Council Chambers. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3595. Sincerely, Stacy t mberg Planner C-06-69 variance request for: Star Schween 6101 6th St. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Reason for variance: I purchased my home in Oct 2005 and I have two driveways, one on 6th Street and one on 61st Ave. At this time, my garage faces 61st Ave. I would like to move my garage so that it faces the 6th Street driveway. justification for my request: it is hazardous to back out of my garage onto 61st Ave which is busy with vehicle traffic. However, my other and more important concern is the sidewalk on 61st Ave is very busy with residents going to and from the park on 7th street. This sidewalk is used -by families and children who' ride their bikes to the park. often the children are not with their parents, many times in groups or sometimes riding by themselves and they do not pay attention to their surroundinggs. = try to be very careful when back out of my driveway, but backing out is really hazardous and I'm concerned that one of these children will come down the street so quickly that z will not see them. Even at other times of the year, whether it is winter or spring, the children walk or ride their bikes to the schools down the street. i would like to move the garage to face 6th Street so when backing out of my garage, I.have a clear view all the way down my driveway (it is a long driveway comingup from 6th Steet). To line up the garage with the driveway, I am asking for your approval to move thearage8 feet in from the property line on the 61st Ave side (see drawings . This in no way impedes view from the corner of 6th Street because the garage would be in my backyard. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Kind Regards, Star Schween -3 %te q 0 Page CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 572-3592 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'X VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs PROPERTY INF RMATION: (certificate of survey required for submittal, see attached) Address: Property Identification Number: — - - .S - Legal Description: Lot --J9 Block Tract/Addition — Current Zoning: Square Footage/acreage: p Reason for Variance: a� R , - v v_ r� 4--w r-• i, i ) .r J' n + A � 5 8A r 1'. P - L., k, - �'-i— n_'4- L0. i.l ,Y0. A A z a,, '6__1�< . 6t�s4a — 4-16,C �tT_ lCk-C' ft Have you operated a bsiness in a city which required a business license? Yes No X, If Yes, which City? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing.) NAME:_ L5 LU -Q -E- �_ ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: 10 x,344_ 1 SIGNATURE/DATE: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: S Q 5 d wry ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: Section of City Code: FEES Fee: $ for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee 250.00 _ r residential properties:_ Receipt Applica ion Number: - Scheduled Appeals Commissi n Date: 430 Scheduled City Council Date: ' o Q (a 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: n ( -Z3 4 [2 ( Received By: ❑ Paul Polin ❑ Kevi Hanson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Jon Haukaas Plannin' Issues: ❑ Setacks ❑ Lot ;coverage ❑ AlloWable square footage ❑ Height Acott Hickok ❑ Ralph Messer ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Stacy Stromberg ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ - ❑ IBC'I ltiuulalons: Name: Engineering Issues: ❑ Drainage o Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location Date: d Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 6101 6t' Street Land Use Case: VAR #06-07 y Paul Oolin ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Ralph Messer /❑_ Kevin Hanson ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Racho Harris ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Jon F aukaas ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannin i Issues: ❑ Setbacks Engineering Issues: ❑ =Lot overage ❑ Drainage ❑ Allo able square footage ❑ Utilities ❑ Heicht ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Landscape ❑ ❑ Hardship statement/narrative Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access Building Issues: ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ IBC' ❑ Hydrant location ❑ ❑ Stipule `ons: Comme ts: , Da Name: te: Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 6101 6t' Street Land Use Case: VAR #06-07 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ ❑ Kevin Hanson ❑ ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ ❑ Jon Haukaas Scott Hickok ❑ Ralph Messer Dave Jensen ❑ Layne Otteson Julie Jones ❑ Mary Smith Ron Julkowski ❑ Stacy Stromberg Planning Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height Engineering Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Landscape ❑ ❑ Hardship statement/narrative Fire Issues: Building Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ IBC ❑ Hydrant location ❑ ❑ Stipula�s-. Comments: Name: Date: Development Review Committee Worksheet Address;: 6101 6t' Street Land Use Case: VAR #06-07 ❑ Paul Folin ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Ralph Messer ❑ Kevinl Hanson ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Julie Jones Mary Smith. ❑ Jon Haukaas ❑ Ron Julkowski Stacy Stromberg Planning Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Alloyvable square footage ❑ Heicht ❑ Lan X Har hip statement/narrative o `-tA--dG A/a , bi�LI Building Issues: ❑ IBC a Comments: Engineering Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements u Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location s Name. Date. IZA Development &eview Committee Worksheet ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Kevin Hanson X);� Rachel Harris ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Jon Haukaas ❑ Ron Julkowski Planning' Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative Building Issues: ❑ IBC' ❑ Ralph Messer ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access a Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location .Date:Z D Name �� V bevelopment Review Committee Worksheet Address: 6101 a Street Land Use Case: VAR #06-07 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Kevin Hanson ❑ Rach'' I Harris ❑ Jon F aukaas Planning Issues: ❑ Setbacks - ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ ne ❑ La ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Ralph Messer ❑ Dave Jensen Layne Otteson ❑ Julie Jones ru Mary Smith ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Stacy Stromberg Engineering Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Hardship statement/narrative Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access Building Issues: ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ IBC ❑ Hydrant location ❑ ❑ Stipulatlions: Comments: N c Name: Date: l �O U� I ON I Mj �o o a I I --------------- -00 I'f— „ At, 60.00 N 4 3 „ 0f', 60.00 N -- --09 *Alz -- - io mauwesn3 ,0111;n Pun 06Du Jp i c9LUDJj A�lo�S ` i JaAa/i; UDO _ 3 ,60,64M N 119 3 I ON I Mj �o �o I I --------------- -00 I'f— „ At, 60.00 N I N• � ------- ----------------- ------ .19 �00� p� I wkr"450 o 5rgecr 2001 VStar 650 Classic 208829567 Copyright 0 2006 craigslist, inc. terms of use privacy policy feedback forum Page 2 of 2 http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/mcy/208829567.htm1 9/18/2006 002007 -- ,1 117 IT if �� � • �" � sir► , A � � TIG Ip -r'�► .�: yr _ +* ARM— — dIOL AIL r-719 IWI i7 W✓ �n ri74a�YUari � ;mH� Gn Yn+Ann<m� Scale 1:4057 al-I �. h.�i4Ue I S O W f �i � I � I I I 3„fib 60.00 N --09'fiL-- ;uawas 3 Xnan puo a6omo p —00££'— hr ------------------ 3,.fifi.6O.O0 N 0 f ' l 1713 I S £ze ________L_ f OV I OLZ I N ` a M y 02 ti abouoo N p 8 Eo Fza I ? o o v is p 3 m Z$£ ---- 6Sz 0 o ro E aT v 'IUOJ3.(ao7S L a N r► �' O .Q '.� �. P. 2h 1/ �p L{�Q�yj, -.' y O 4 h --19'f S (d)6f86Z 3 60,6100N 3..60,6L.ZQ N �7 p T�1 O °2Sa w v 7o � 3 � O �oo on opo 3rA 0a41S Y19 3 W > O z IA IA z r>" �,. A 0.1 o �'vMi yr c� iW-1.J �r; of� v.�i M rr �,� e°o• �� � '�a