VAR 98-33� p 0
CI7YOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
AMENDED
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
February 1, 1999
Robert Granger
6310 7 h Street
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Granger:
On January 4, 1999, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance,
VAR #98-33, to increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 feet
to 17 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 16, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition,
generally located at 6310 71h Street N.E., with the stipulation that the petitioner present a
Hold Harmless Agreement to the City of Fridley and that it be filed with Anoka County.
You have one year from the date of the City Council action to initiate construction. If you
cannot begin construction during this time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension
at least three weeks prior to the expiration date.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3599.
Since�dly,
Sc
tt Hickok
anning Coordinator
Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley
Planning Department by February 16, 1999.
SH:Is
VA;jjit(' ffilp I
WN0,
MAP
�,
• a-01=04
•
Minnesota Investment Funds, as amended, and to waive the reading. Seconded by
Councilmember Billings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBER VOTING AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM
BARNETTE DECLARED THE MOTION CAR ED UNANIMOUSLY.
23.
THE ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
FROM 10 FEET TO 17 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN
DECK, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6310 SEVENTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1):
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, explained that Mr. Granger was requesting a variance to
increase the allowable encroachment in the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow for
the construction of an open deck, at his property located at 6310 Seventh Street N.E. Mr.
Granger's hardship statement was that the requested deck would allow for greater usage of the
livable area and would not change the character of the neighborhood in any way. Mr. Hickok
stated that on a field visit staff noted that alternatives exist which would allow the proposed deck
to be constructed without a variance. The City has a 23 -foot drainage and utility easement along
the west side of the property, which would require a hold harmless agreement if the deck were
built as proposed.
Mr. Hickok provided a drawing of the site and the proposed deck. The proposed deck contained
both an upper and lower platform with stairs coming off each side of the lower platform.
Unfortunately, the steps coming off the lower platform would cause an encroachment beyond
what is allowable. The alternative noted by staff would be to run the stairway off the north or
south side of the upper deck; however, the petitioner has noted that with the window
configuration he would prefer to construct the steps as originally proposed.
Councilmember Billings noted that this case was a difficult one for the Appeals Commission. He
sincerely respected the decision of the Appeals Commission; however, contrary to their
recommendation, he was in favor of the variance request.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Variance Request, VAR #98-33, by Robert
Granger, to increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet
to allow the construction of an open deck, generally located at 6310 Seventh Street N.E., with
the stipulation that the petitioner present a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City of Fridley and
that it be filed with Anoka County. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if the deck would run the full length of the house. Mr. Hickok noted
that it would not run the entire length but would cover a substantial portion.
Councilmember Wolfe noted, if this were the case, the stairway would likely be visible from the
front of the house. Mr. Hickok responded that it was possible; however, the side yard setbacks
are rather large, and it could be done without encroaching. He noted that there are a number of
other homes in Fridley where this has been done.
Mr. Granger stated that he designed the deck to be attractive. With the location of the windows,
he really would rather not run the stairway on either side of the upper deck.
U
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL
BARNETTE DECLARED THE M
E
iERS VOTING AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Pro Tem Barnette asked what ob 'gations the City has with regard to this loan. Ms. Dacy
responded that there were no obligatios on the part of the City. The City would act as a
sponsor, putting together all of the pape ork and seeing that Harker's complies with the job and
wage goals. The City does not have any fi ancial obligations.
With no further questions, there was a MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public
hearing at 8:36 p.m. Seconded by Councilme ber Wolfe.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMS RS VOTING AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM
BARNETTE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:3 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS.
21.
E
ENTITLED
rl
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the first�tc Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", by
205.08.01.C. (4), 205.09.01.C. (3), and 205.10.01.C. (4),
facilities on properties that exceed 12,000 square feet in the
Family District; R-3, General Multiple Unit District; and R -
waive the reading thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Bol
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VO'
BARNETTE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
22.
I
4
Lding of an ordinance recodifying the
nending Sections 205.07.01.C. (4),
allow, by special use permit, daycare
Single Family District; R-2, Two
Mobile Home Park District and to
AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM
IMOUSLY.
F
Ms. Dacy noted that a minor correction to Resolution No. 8-1999 fund on Page 22.02 of the
agenda. The third paragraph, line 6 should be changed to read " ... C mpliance Section (S-7) of
the Business and Community Development ..."
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the adoption of ReAolution No. 8-1999, A
Resolution Authorizing the City of Fridley to Act as the Legal Sponsorfo an Application to the
Department of Trade and Economic Development on Behalf of Harker' Distribution Inc. for
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4. 1999 PAGE 11
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, MAYOR PRO TEM
BARNETTE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
24.
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, explain c
requested a variance to increase the size of
increase the maximum height of a pylon sigil
adjacent to an entry driveway rather than to
City Code requires that pylon signs be no mo
80 square feet in size, and that they be at least
that Mr. Pelstring of Spiker's Grille & Beachclub
pylon sign from 80 feet to 200 square feet, and to
from 25 feet to 50 feet and to place a pylon sign
sting it 10 feet from a driveway or property line.
than 25 feet in height, that they be no more than
0 feet from any entry drive or property line.
The hardship statement of the petitioner was tha this property is currently served and immediately
adjacent only next to the frontage road. In fact, he majority of the site is set back approximately
100 feet off the frontage road. As such, thepro erty is 250 feet or more off either of the two
major thoroughfares (Highway 65 and Osborne oad). The property is zoned for commercial
development, and their use is appropriate for thik zoning. It was consistent with commercial
zoning that this type of site would typically have irect "road site" exposure. A sign variance
would be needed to overcome this obstacle.
They believe the physical location and separation fro'
The current configuration of the frontage road was co.
The developments of the individual lots, which ph
thoroughfares, were all completed prior to their acqui
the signage would directly impact any residential deve
area signage (i.e. the height of the Friendly Chevrolet
Rice Bowl Restaurant) were very consistent and/or ex
the roadways are unique within the City.
)leted prior to their acquisition of the site.
ically separate this site from the major
ion. They stated that they do not believe
Ment. Additionally, they believe that the
and/or the "off-site" signage for Tam's
their variance request.
Mr. Hickok noted that the City has not granted any si filar sign variances within the past ten
years. The signs mentioned were both legal, non-confo ing signs that had sign permits issued
prior to the current sign ordinance being adopted.
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to deny this va'ance request. The Commission did,
however, recommend that Council investigate a creative solu on to the hardship as offered by the
petitioner by whatever means possible even if it requires seti:in a precedent.
Mayor Pro Tem Barnette asked if the 80 square foot sign lim'�' applied also to rooftop signage.
Mr. Hickok responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there were any discussions on signage with the petitioner prior
to construction. Mr. Hickok stated that this was a topic of dis ussion early on. Staff tried to
steer the petitioner in another direction to avoid seeking a varianc . He noted that the petitioner
also explored the possibility of purchasing a 600 -square foot par I of land on the corner for a
signage site. An 80 square foot sign on that parcel would give the the necessary exposure and
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 12
be adequate for their needs. Staf(F has informed them; however, that a lot split would not likely be
approved for this purpose.
Councilmember Billings asked when the statutory sixty-day period expires on this variance
request. Mr. Hickok responded tha it would expire prior to Council's next scheduled meeting on
January 25.
Mr. Pat Pelstring, Spiker's Grille & Beachclub, stated they believed that they had a unique
business and a unique site. Finding th right site was difficult, and they understood it would be
difficult when it came to identification. At least eighty percent of their income would be derived
from the restaurant and lodge business. t would be very important for people to be able to find
them. They have been trying all along to work with staff to come up with an acceptable solution
to the problem. He stated that he could n t find a similar situation to their's where the immediate
access and visibility of the site was restrict d and blocked entirely by buildings between the main
thoroughfare and their building. Further ore, the length of the entry road into their site is
approximately 100 feet. The address of their site is 7651 Highway 65, which he feels will also
likely cause some confusion.
Mr. Pelstring discussed some of the options
small parcel of property on the corner. Cour
also felt it would be very difficult for them to o
have considered including the purchase of a
amber Billings informed Mr. Pelstring that he
a lot split for this purpose.
Mr. Pelstring stated that an 80 square foot sign o top of their building would not provide them
the visibility they need. Therefore, they requeste a sign variance to increase the size from 80
square feet to 200 square feet, an increase in heightom 25 to 50 feet and that they be allowed to
place a sign adjacent to the entry drive. He noted th t the Friendly Chevrolet sign is 47 feet high
(225 square feet). With their facility located an addit nal 150 feet back, their sign would appear
to be lower on the horizon than the Friendly Chevrol sign, and their sign would be smaller. If
they were allowed to construct a sign at a height of 4 feet with a total square footage of 120
square feet, it would meet their base sign requirements.
The possibility of neon striping on their building was al o discussed. Mr. Pelstring noted that
while this would help, it would not identify the business, which they feel would be so important.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that granting a variance r uest such as this would set a huge
precedence. The fact is that they knew when they wanted move to the City what the City's
requirements were regarding signage. Staff has continued to r mind them of that.
Mr. Pelstring stated that given the distance their property is toated from the frontage road and
the visual separation, he did not think the City would be settink a precedent as a hardship was
very evident. City signage requirements would make it difficultfo their business to compete with
other restaurants in the area.
Mr. Hickok reminded Mr. Pelstring that the Friendly Chevrolet st'gn was apre-existing, non-
conforming sign. When the business name changed, the only chan that was made to the sign
was the content. Therefore, they were not required to comply with th new signage requirements.
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
Date: 12/22/98 'n
To: William Bums, City Manager 4
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
RE: Appeals Commission action on VAR #98-33 M-98-253
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fridley has been asked by Robert Granger to grant a variance increasing
the allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from- 10' to 17' for the
construction of an open deck.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION
At the December 9, 1998 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held
for VAR #98-33. The following is the motion and vote of the Appeals Commission:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to deny Variance Request, VAR #98-
33, by Robert Granger, to increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard
from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 16, Block 1, Alice
Wall Addition, generally located at 6310 7h Street.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH VOS, MAU, AND JONES VOTING AYE, AND
KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff has no recommendation due to the fact that this request is within a
previously granted dimension. If approved, staff recommends a stipulation requiring
the petitioner to sign a "hold harmless agreement" as a portion of the deck will be in
a City Drainage & Utility Easement.
Attachments
12/22/98
23.01
•
CITY OF FRIDLEY
0
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Kuechle called the December 9, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Lary Kuechle, Ken Vos, Terrie Mau, Blaine Jones
Members Absent: Carol Beaulieu
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Jerry Osborn, 5869 Hackmann
Kelly Wolf, 5869 Hackmann
Arlen Wolf, Ramsey, Minnesota
Bill Cragg, Pascual Signs, 10856 Highway 81, Maple Grove, MN
Robert Granger, 6310 7th Street N.E.
Pat Pelstring, 7651 Central Avenue N.E.
K. Ruwart, 5837 Hackmann Avenue
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 23 1998 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the September 23, 1998,
Appeals Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: Mr. Hickok introduced Mr. Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant,
who joined the staff at the City of Fridley early in November. Mr. Bolin was previously a
planner for the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98-33
BY ROBERT GRANGER:
Per Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the allowable
encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow the
construction of a deck on Lot 16, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition, generally located at
6310 7th Street.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Mau, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998 PAGE 2
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to increase the allowable
encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow the construction
of an open deck at 6310 7th Street. The zoning code allows an encroachment of 10 feet
into the rear yard setback for the construction of open decks. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family. The surrounding properties to the north, east, south and west are also
zoned R-1, Single Family.
Mr. Bolin stated the building permit records show that the home was built in 1985. The
hardship statement from the petitioner states the requested deck would allow greater
usage of the livable area of the house by the petitioner and his family and would not
change the character of the neighborhood in any negative way.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff noted on a field visit that alternatives exist that would allow the
proposed deck to be built without a variance. The City has a 23 -foot drainage and utility
easement along the west side of the property which would require a hold harmless
agreement.
Mr. Bolin stated the City has granted similar requests in the past including a variance in
1995 to reduce the setback from 32.6 feet to 23 feet for the construction of a three -
season porch; in 1996 to increase the encroachment to 12 feet and reduce the rear yard
setback to 26 feet for the construction of a deck; and in 1998 to reduce the rear yard
setback from 31.25 feet to 13 feet for the construction of a three -season porch.
Mr. Bolin stated, because the City has granted similar variances in the past, staff has no
recommendation. If the Appeals Commission recommends approval, staff recommends
the following stipulation:
1. Property owner will sign a "Hold Harmless Agreement", agreeing to hold the City
harmless for any damages that may occur to the deck due to the City exercising its
rights within the easement area. The agreement also states that any additional
costs incurred by the City in utilizing its easement, which are caused by the deck,
shall be reimbursed to the City upon thirty (30) days written notice to the property
owner. This agreement will be binding upon both parties and upon their heirs,
successors, and assigns.
Mr. Bolin showed a drawing of the site and of the deck. The deck comes out
approximately 12 feet from the home with steps going down to a landing, then additional
steps doing down from the landing. This is a point at which the encroachment comes in.
It may be possible to run the steps off the north side of the deck but that would change
the look of the deck.
Dr. Vos asked staff to show on the drawing where the encroachment would fall.
•
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998 PAGE 3
Mr. Bolin stated the first deck would be fine. The encroachment occurs at about three
feet on the lower deck. A landing is about 36 inches. With a railing, you may or may not
be able to clear three feet.
Mr. Granger stated he purchased the property in September, 1997. He was not aware of
the drainage easement. There is a holding pond in that area behind the apartment
buildings. All the draining from his house goes over to 6300 which would be the house to
the left. That house has a tuck -under garage and it is all sand in that area. The drainage
from his property does not go to that drainage pond.
Mr. Kuechle stated he believed these were separate issues. Whether the drainage
easement existed or not, the variance would be required because of the setback from the
lot line to the deck. If the variance is granted, the petitioner would be on the drainage
easement and that involves some other issues. The stipulation would require a hold
harmless agreement so the owner cannot come to the City.
Mr. Granger stated he had discussed the hold harmless agreement with the City. The
City needs to access the easement. The only thing that would have to be removed would
be the stairway which is not a big issue.
Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Granger what he thought about the suggestion that it might be
possible to put the stairway to the north and not need a variance.
Mr. Granger stated this was not practical. He wants to put a hot tub on the lower deck.
He would not want it on the main deck. It is not a life or death situation. It would be very
appealing. It would be in full view on 63rd Street. The deck would be very attractive. It
will not be an eyesore.
Ms. Mau asked if Mr. Granger has any problem with the hold harmless agreement with
the City.
Mr. Granger stated, no.
Dr. Vos asked if the easement was there to get to the holding pond. It seems like a wide
easement at 23 feet.
Mr. Bolin stated the easement is 23 feet wide and then goes down to 5 feet wide
approximately 30 feet from the north lot line. The Assistant Public Works Director at this
time does not foresee a need to use the easement at any time in the near future. He did
not have a problem with the variance request as long as there is a hold harmless
agreement.
Mr. Jones asked if the property title has to be changed to reflect that. He would assume
that this would go with the property.
0
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998 PAGE 4
Mr. Hickok stated the City would ask the petitioner to file the hold harmless agreement
with the County so that future owners would be aware of that. Regarding the width of the
easement, there is a low lying area between the residential street and the development
behind them. This easement does accommodate a low lying area. That is why staff felt it
important for the public works staff to look at the request. Staff was concerned in the
event there would be a flood. The assistant public works director did not see any
concerns about the encroachment as it is designed.
Mr. Kuechle asked the petitioner if there is an existing deck on the house.
Mr. Granger stated, no.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Jones stated the design is attractive. He can see the point that for his utility and if he
wants to put a hot tub on the lower deck, it keeps it out of the way and makes a usable
section. If the petitioner is willing to sign a hold harmless agreement with the City, he
would be inclined to vote in favor of the request.
Mr. Mau agreed. With City staff having looked at this and not seeing any future problems
with the easement and if the petitioner is willing to sign the hold harmless agreement, she
would vote in favor. It is rather bothersome that this will be passed on to future
homeowners, but she did not see that as enough of a problem to keep her from voting in
favor.
Dr. Vos stated approval of a variance requires a hardship. The petitioner can get a 15 -
foot deck in there without a variance, and he could get a second level to either the south
or north. It would not necessarily have to drop down to the west. He does not vote for a
variance unless he sees a hardship, and he does not see a hardship. He would vote to
deny the request.
Mr. Kuechle agreed. He thought that in this case, some of the alternatives need to be
explored as to whether the deck and hot tub could still fit in there. He would be inclined to
vote against the request.
Mr. Granger stated that if he drops down to the south or north, he would be blocking
windows. The back lower level of the house is all windows.
Dr. Vos stated the deck is a good size and there may be other options.
Mr. Granger stated he did not see what the problem was. There is still 14 feet for access
in the back.
•
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998 PAGE 5
Mr. Kuechle stated the issue is that the setbacks for the rear yard lot line are set for
aesthetic reasons, not necessarily for driving a vehicle through there. The idea is not to
produce overcrowding on residential lots. That is the purpose of the ordinance. One of
the charges of the Appeals Commission is to only grant variances when an undue
hardship exists. That is the sticking point at the moment. Is there an undue hardship
here? Are there other alternatives? At this point, two Commission members feel there
are probably other alternatives that ought to be looked at and two feel this is not quite the
case.
Mr. Granger stated they were not crowding anything. There is a pond in the back. He
spends a great deal of time out there cleaning it up. His property is not backing up to
anything but a large drainage pond which is used for a dump.
Ms. Mau stated she thought it is a precedent. If they allow this variance, they would then
have to allow the same for someone else.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Mau, to re -open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:52 P.M.
Dr. Vos asked if staff had an aerial photograph of the area.
Mr. Hickok stated they did not have an aerial photograph.
Dr. Vos asked staff to show the area map.
Mr. Kuechle stated part of the problem is that the Commission does not have any
documentation as to what effect this has on the house. That information has some
impact on their decision. If you have an existing house and that has an impact, it may
make a difference. No such evidence has been brought forth in that area.
Dr. Vos stated the back of the property abuts another property to the rear as well as the
pond area. Saying the property is only up against the drainage pond is not totally correct.
This property is also adjacent to another persons back yard. Essentially, the back yard is
partly shared by someone else's back yard. He asked if there was a house on that
property.
Mr. Hickok stated there is a house on that property to the rear. The next lot to the west is
vacant.
Mr. Granger asked if he could get a statement from that neighbor saying this is okay.
Dr. Vos stated the variance is asking for the Appeals Commission to waive the code
requirements because of a hardship that is not your doing, such as the land dropping off,
•
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998 PAGE 6
you can't build closer, there is something wrong, etc. A hardship is not wanting a large
deck.
Mr. Granger stated he felt that anything he can do to improve that area would help.
MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M.
Ms. Mau stated the hardship situation is a good point; this is a large deck and it does
make a difference.
Mr. Jones stated he can see the point. Can someone show a hardship based on the fact
that this is the best way to do it with the existing house design? Where do you draw the
line?
Dr. Vos stated economics are not considered a hardship. If there is a window in the way,
you can look at it. If a deck could only be 3 feet wide and you wanted 10 feet wide, that
might be considered a hardship. A deck that goes out 15 feet and does not go into a
variance request he did not think was sufficient. It could go the width of the house and
would be sufficient.
Mr. Jones stated he did not know the design of the back of the house. After further
discussion, he would tend to vote against the request as he did not see a hardship.
Mr. Kuechle stated a hardship probably does exist, but he was not sure the petitioner has
clearly stated what the problems would be. Without knowing the structure of the house to
know whether or not it would be feasible to construct that stairway configuration, he
cannot really tell. He would tend vote in favor of the request.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request,
#98-33, by Robert Granger, to increase the allowable encroachment into the rear yard
from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow the construction of a deck on Lot 16, Block 1, Alice Wall
Addition, generally located at 6310 7th Street.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH VOS, MAU, AND JONES VOTING AYE, AND KUECHLE
VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY
MAJORITY VOTE.
Mr. Kuechle stated the request would go before the City Council on January 4, 1999. He
suggested that the petitioner provide additional information at that time as to the
construction of the house, perhaps provide some pictures, and be prepared to answer
questions regarding the hardship.
0
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 9, 1998
PAGE 7
Mr. Jones suggested the petitioner speak with a part-time designer on staff, Dave Mayer,
who may be able to provide additional alternatives.
2.
Per Section 214.11.02.13 of the F 'dley Sign Code, to increase the size of a sign
from 80 square feet to 200 squat feet; and
Per Section 214.11.02.0 of the Fridtey Sign Code, to increase the maximum height
of a sign from 25 feet to 50 feet; an
Per Section 214.11.02.E of the Fridlek Sign Code, to place a free-standing sign on
an entry driveway rather than the codA requirements locating the sign 10 feet from
any driveway or property line;
To allow the construction of a free -
Addition, generally located at 7651
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Mau,
notice and to open the public hearing.
pylon sign on Lots 3 & 4, A & R
Avenue.
waive the reading of the public hearing
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner, Patrick Pelstring, has r quested three variances to the sign
ordinance. The first is to increase the size of a pylon ign from 80 square feet to 200
square feet; the second to increase the maximum heig t of a pylon sign from 25 feet to
50 feet; and the third to place a pylon sign adjacent to ap entry driveway rather than the
code requirements locating the sign 10 feet from any d ' eway or property line. The
Fridley sign code allows pylon signs to a maximum heigh of 25 feet, signs to be no larger
than 80 square feet is size, and signs be no closer than 1 feet to any driveways or
property lines.
Mr. Bolin stated the property is located at 7651 Central Ave ue (Highway 65). The parcel
is Lot 3 of the A & R Addition and Lot 4 of the A & R Second Addition. The property is
zoned C-2, General Business. Zoning to the north is C-2, G eral Business; to the east
is M-1, Light Industrial; to the south is M-1, Light Industrial, an M-2, Heavy Industrial; and
to the west is a fast food restaurant, C-2, General Business, a d M-2, Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Bolin stated that when looking at past zoning and land use Action history for this
property, staff found that the A & R Addition plat was approved the City Council in
1986. The property was also rezoned from C-3, General Shoppi g Center, to C-2,
General Business, at the same time. The A & R Second Addition lat was approved by
the City Council in 1987. There was a stipulation in the re -plat tha required Lot 4 of the A
•
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR -98-33 December 9, 1998
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Robert Granger
6310 7t' St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To increase the allowable encroachment
into the rear yard setback, to allow the
construction of a deck.
Existing Zoning:
Residential - 1
Location:
6310 7d` ST. NE
Size:
9,600 square feet .22 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:
Section 205.04.06.A.(3) allows a 10 foot
encroachment into the rear yard setback
for the construction of open decks.
Zoning History:
Home was built in 1985.
Legal Description of Property:
Lots 16, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition
Council Action:
January 4, 1999
Public
SPECIAL INFORMATION
.Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is located on 7t` St. between 63rd.
Ave. and Mississippi St.
Physical Characteristics:
Property is well landscaped and contains
the home and attached garage. Yard
slopes gently toward the rear property
line.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Robert Granger, property owner, is seeking to
increase the allowable encroachment into the
rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet to allow
the construction of an open deck. Stair
alternatives exist that would allow the proposed
deck to be built without a variance.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff has no recommendation due to the
fact that this request is within a previously
granted dimension. If approved, staff
recommends a stipulation requiring the
petitioner to sign a "Hold Harmless Agreement"
as a portion of the deck will be in a City
Drainage & Utility Easement. Approved
variances similar to this request include:
VAR 96-02 6496 Riverview Terrace
Encroachment increased to 12', and setback
reduced to 26' for construction of a deck.
VAR 98-16 10 Rice Creek Way
Rear yard setback reduced from 31.25' to 13'
for construction of a three -season porch.
VAR 95-14 6150 Briardale Court
Rear yard setback reduced from 32.6' to 23' for
construction of a three -season porch.
Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin
0
VAR -98-33
HARDSHIP STATEMENT
- See attached letter from petitioner.
0
ANALYSIS
Section 205.04.06.A.(3) allows a 10' encroachment into the rear yard setback for the
construction of open decks. The petitioner is requesting a variance to increase the
allowable encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10' to 17', thus decreasing the
rear yard open space by 16', to 14', allowing the construction of an open deck.
Stair alternatives exist that would allow the proposed deck to be built without a
variance. Staff made a visit to the site and noted that the stairs could be built on the
North side of the deck without any variances. Staff also determined it may be possible
to build stairs on the South side of the deck without a variance.
The City has a 23' Drainage & Utility Easement along most of the West side of the
property. Jon Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director, stated, "The property owner
will need to sign a `Hold Harmless Agreement' with the City as this is an encroachment
into a recorded easement. The agreement will protect the City of Fridley from liabilitites
associated with damage or removal of the deck in the event that there was a need for
utility work in the easement`.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff has no recommendation due to the fact that this request is within a previously
granted dimension. If approved by the appeals commission, staff recommends a
stipulation be attached requiring the property owner to sign a "Hold Harmless
Agreement" as a portion of the deck will be in a City Drainage & Utility Easement.
Approved variances similar to this request include:
VAR 96-02 6496 Riverview Terrace
Encroachment increased to 12', and setback reduced to 26' for construction of a deck.
VAR 98-16 10 Rice Creek Way
Rear yard setback reduced from 31.25' to 13' for construction of a three -season porch.
VAR 95-14 6150 Briardale Court
Rear yard setback reduced from 32.6' to 23' for construction of a three -season porch.
STIPULATIONS
If approved by the appeals commission, staff recommends the following stipulation be
attached:
1. Property owner will sign a "Hold Harmless Agreement" , agreeing to hold the City
harmless for any damages that may occur to the deck due to the City exercising its
rights within the easement area. The agreement also states that any additional
costs incurred by the City in utilizing its easement, which are caused by the deck,
shall be reimbursed to the City upon thirty (30) days written notice to the property
0
•
owner. This agreement will be binding upon both parties and upon their heirs,
successors, and assigns.
.n ,,� •
CWL- o
014
•
a
_ •- tT
-
o r
+® S r
---. ._.- - -- -; - •{ ,'fit• �. .-, -
VIr
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION
TO:
Property owners within 350 feet of 6310 7"' Street NE
CASE NUMBER:
VAR #98-33
APPLICANT.
Robert Granger
6310 71 Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Petitioner or representative must attend the Appeals Commission meeting.
PURPOSE:
Per Section 205.04.06.A.(3), to increase the allowable
encroachment into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 17 feet
to allow the construction of a deck.
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY:
6310 7' Street NE
LEGAL
Fridley, MN 55432
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 16, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition
DATE AND TIME OF
Appeals Commission Meeting:
HEARING:
Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night
of the meeting on Channel 35.
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers,
6431 University Avenue
HOW TO
1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTICIPATE:
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok,
Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E.,
Fridley, MN 55432, or fax at 571-1287.
SPECIAL
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
ACCOMMODATIONS:
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no
later than December 2, 1998.
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599.
Mailing Date: November 25, 1998
DETTLE MICHAEL H & KRISTY E 06ROWN BILLMAN PARTNERSHIP 46ILLMAN R W & R K TRUSTEES
1495 CREEK PARK LN 151 SILVER LAKE RD 151 SILVER LAKE RD NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112
FOWLER CHERYL T
415 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
459 63RD AVE NE
-���
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
SAUNDERS WAYNE & MILADA K
500 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
ARENSON MARLYS M
524 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6000 W MOORE LAKE DR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
DAY RICHARD LEE & SHIRLEY
6270 6TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FISHER TODD R & ACKER ANGELA R
6280 6TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6300 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BROWN RONALD W & SHARI L
431 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
460 MISSISSIPPI ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
HUSS RUTH ANNE
501 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
KROSKA LEONARD L & JUNETTE
525 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
GRANT ISABEL
6260 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
NEWBERGER JAMES W & MICHELE J
6270 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
JUENEMANN DOUGLAS H & T G
6280 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
GRANGER ROBERT L
6310 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
445 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BOGUCKI JOHN & CHRISTINE G
475 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
NEU MARY ANN
512 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FLEISCHAUER DEBBIE L
536 63RD AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
EVANS MARY LOU
6261 6TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
COYLE LESLIE J & JEAN
6271 6TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
COBB KATHY L
6281 6TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PUNCOCHAR CURTIS A
6310 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
TAKLE STEVEN DUANE & CAROL HUELSNITZ GARY W & ELLEN M SCHWARTZBAUER DAVID & LYNN
6311 7TH ST NE 6320 7TH ST NE 6320 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
10MCGREGOR JAMES R CURRENT RESIDENT •CURRENT RESIDENT
6321 7TH ST NE 6330 7TH ST NE �� 6330 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PERSELL RONALD J & JANET M
6331 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PLACK DENNIS M & NANCY
6341 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
LILLESKOV ANNE L
6351 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PENN CHRISTOPHER T & MARIA C
6340 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
KERSEY KENT R & MAYKA
6350 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
WIMBERLY BRIAN J & LORI J
6360 7TH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6340 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
HAUGEN ELEANORE E ETAL
6350 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
GLEASON JAMEST MARY & IRENE
6360 WASHINGTON ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
LONG LARRY C & DEBRA ANN WOODS KAREN & JORGENSEN D J BROWN BI LM PARTNERSHIP
6361 7TH ST NE 6863 7TH ST NE Bad Addres
FRIDLEY, MN 55434 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 151 SILVE RD
NEW BRI T , MN 55112
IND SCHOOL TRICT 14
Bad Address
6000 WEST O RE LK DR NE
FRIDLEY, M 5 32
FRIDLEY APTS
C/O LASALLE MGMT GROUP LTD
2001 KILLEBREW DR #308
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425
raw
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287
November 23, 1998
Mr. Robert Granger
6310 7' Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Granger:
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use
applicants within 10 days if their variance applications are complete. We received an
application for a variance on November 13, 1998. This letter serves to inform you that
your application is complete.
Your variance application hearing, discussion, and action will take place at the City of
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting on December 9, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. in the City
Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact
me at 572-3593.
Sincerely,
Paul Bolin
Planning Assistant
PB
C-98-226
•
City of Fridley Building Dept.
Fridley, Mn 55432
RE: Requested varience at 6310 7th St NE
0
Per your request I are amending the varience application to include the
fact that the requested deck would allow far greater usage of the livable
area of the house by my family and me and would NOT change the
character of the neighborhood in any negative way.
I appreciate your considering this request.
Robe anger
•
•
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ARIANCE` PPLICATION FOR:
XX Residentia ommercial/Industrial Signs
PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: 6310 7th St NE
Property Identification Number: R14-30-24-31-0021
Legal Description: Lot 16 Block 1 Tract/Addition Alice wall Addition
Current Zoning: R. Square footage/acreage: 9600 sq ft
Reason for Variance: Proposed construction of attached deck with
treated wood. Said deck would infringe on easement about 7 ft.
Have you operated a business 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
.ter-rwr.rv...�r.err..�.�.�.r�.�.�..rti..rw.-rwrwrnr�r�..r�r�r.r�r.r-r�r�r�.-rwr.rw.r.r.r^rw.�...rwrw.�.�r�rr.rw.�..v-ri+.i►rrw..r�r.r
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME: Robert Granger
ADDRESS. 6310 7th St NE, Fridley, MN 55432
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DAT
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME: same
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE:
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial r signs:
Fee: $60.00 for residential properties:) �L Receipt #: Received By:
Application Number: 33.
Scheduled Appeals Commission Date:
Scheduled City Council Date:
10 Day Application jComplete Notification Date:
60 Day Date:
City of Fridley Land Use
Application Process
60 Day Agency Action Law 1 0
Application Date Planning Commission Meeting
60 Day Window Starts Recommendation to Council
21-40 Days
,
,
Application Complete
10 Day Notice ;
Submit Complete
Application and
Materials
Public Hearings:
Variance
Vacations
Lot Splits
Plats
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
Wetland Replacements
Comprehensive Plan
Special Use Permits
City Council Decision
Approval or Denial
50-60 Days
Approved, Action Taken Letter
� Tabled, 60 More Days
� Denied
iPublic Hearings:
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
AGREEMENT
This agreement dated this day of 0 1999, by and between
Robert L. Granger, (hereinafter referred to as "the owner"), and the
City of Fridley (hereinafter referred to as "the City").
WHEREAS, the owner owns residential real estate in the City located at
6310 7th St NE, and is legally described as follows:
Lot 16 Block 1, Alice Wall Addition
WHEREAS, said property is adjacent to a drainage & utility easement
along the entire west property line; and
WHEREAS. a small portion of said easement has been utilized to acc-
ommodate a portion of a deck placed within the easement; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to allow the encroachment on said
easement to remain upon certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of allowing use of said easement
Robert L. Granger, his heirs, successors, and assigns hereby covenant
and agree as follows:
1. Robert L. Granger, his heirs, sucessors, and assigns shall hold the
City harmless for any injuries or damages to property by reason of his
construction of a deck within the City's easement. In addition, he shall
be liable for any and all costs associated with removal of all or any part
of the deck in the event that the City, in its discretion determines that it
must use all or part of the easement and the presence of the deck
interferes with that use.
2. Robert L. Granger, his heirs, successors, and assigns shall defend
the City against any and all claims arising as a result of construction within
the drainage and utility easement. The City may defend and charge
the costs of such defense against Robert L. Granger, his heirs,
successors, and assigns, and assess such costs against the subject properfi
if adequate and timely defense is not commenced on the City's behalf.
3. Robert L. Granger, his heirs, successors, and assigns shall agree to
promptly pay any sums due under this agreement.
The City may pursue judgements to collect the amounts owing under this
agreement, and if said sums are not promptly paid, the City may assess the
costs against the subject property.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
William W. Bums
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 44 -day
of , 1999, by ROBERT L. GRANGER
ROBERTA S. COLONS
NOTARY gra
MY COMMISSION EVIRES Nota Pub
JANUARY 31, 2005 Notary
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of , 1999, by Williams W. Bums, City Manager of the City of
Fridley.
Notary Publ'
r~�
MY'COMMISSION EVIRES
JANUARY 31, 2005
ABSTRACT
Receipt #
❑ Certified Copy
Date Mailed
❑ Tax Liens / Releases
Doc. Order. J of l
❑ Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd
of by: Pins:
Recordability / Delgs:
❑ Transfer ❑ New Desc,
Filing Fees: 11<0
Division ❑ GAC
Well Certificate 17
❑ Status ❑ Def. Spec
Received this Date:
Anoka County Recorder
❑ Other ;IrNo Change
Notes:
DOCUMENT N0. 3-473607.0 ABSTRACT
ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE
FOR RECORD ON DEC 08 1999
AT 10:30 AM AND WAS DULY RECORDED.
FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $29.50 PAID.
RECEIPT NO. 1999123666
EDWARD M. TRESKA
ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES
BY LAB
-Y TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES