Loading...
VAR 01-06STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of: VAR #01-06 Owner: James F. DuRose 0�6-3a-at/-0?-3•600�7 APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 25th day of April, 2001, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To increase the height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached two -car garage on Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition, generally located at 113 49th Avenue NE IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the fo!lowing conditions or reasons: Approved with stipulations. See attached April 25, 2001, Appeals Commission minutes. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the /Ofh, day of , 2001. DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 T�J� Skogen City Perk Agr��ij f ? �. r0 d' q7F i y t• ` Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within that period. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the April 25, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Sue Jackson, Ken Vos, Jon Tynjala Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Bulthuis, Planner James Du Rose, 113 49th Avenue Kenny Homs, HGA APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28, 2001, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the March 28, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #01-06, BY JAMES DU ROSE: Per Section 205.07.01 b(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached. two -car garage on Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition, generally located at 113 49h Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioner is seeking to increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to construct a detached two car garage. The hardship summary states: "The request for the variance at 113 49th Avenue is to replace the existing garage with the larger building located in the backyard. We are not able to attach a garage to our home because of a brick fireplace that is located on that side of the house. Therefore we need to place the garage behind the house in the backyard." Ms. Bulthuis stated the proposed garage would be located five feet behind the home and would not encroach on any side yard lot lines. Staff has no recommendation as this request is within previously granted dimensions. A similar variance was granted in 1992 at 6181 Benjamin Street, and the height of that structure was increased to 19 feet. If the Commission approves the variance, staff recommends the following stipulations: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 PAGE 2 . ' 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with the same siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. Dr. Vos asked if there would still be room for the other accessory building in the back. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner has enough square footage for the other accessory building. Dr. Vos asked what the relative height from the house to the garage would be because there is a drop. Mr. Bolin stated it would be about the same. Mr. Kuechle asked if putting more fill around it would take care of the problem. Mr. Bolin stated it would be an option; but on the east side of the home, it would cause runoff problems for the neighboring property owner. It would also direct water towards the home if you raised the grade between the garage and the house. Mr. Kuechle asked what the alternative is except to do what they are doing. Is the option of placing more fill going to work? Mr. Bolin stated there really are no other options. The fill would not work because it would cause runoff problems. It may be possible to dig the lower level out an extra 2.5 feet, but that may also cause problems getting a door into the lower unit because of the grade change. The petitioner, Mr. Du Rose, stated the contractor set up the survey scopes, and the actual height to benefit him in the lowest level of the garage would be seven feet, as opposed to the eight feet. Then, they would bring the garage lower to the grade so he would not have such a high apron to come up into the garage. If he kept it at eight feet to lower the garage so he has an apron that is lower, he would have to step down into the lower level of the garage quite a bit. By lowering it to the seven foot height, he would not need a sump pump. The grade of the floor would be level or just a step down from the entrance door. Dr. Vos asked if that changed the variance request. Mr. Du Rose stated that it probably would change it by a foot. That would drop it from 16.6 to 15.6 feet. Mr. Kuechle asked how far the garage floor would be above the present garage floor. Mr. Du Rose stated they would try to have it on the same grade as the old garage floor, and the new garage floor may be a little higher depending on the apron and grade. The accessory building there right now will face east and west. Dr. Vos asked which way the slope of the garage would go. Mr. Du Rose stated that it will have the same slope as the garage has right now. Looking from the street, it will have the same story and a half slope to the roof and have an eight foot pitch to the roof. From the street, it will almost be like looking at the side of his house. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Kuechle asked if the roof would run north/south or east/west. Mr. Du Rose stated that it would run north/south just like the existing one. His house runs east and west. Mr. Jones asked if any neighbors had any comments. Mr. Du Rose stated that no neighbor has mentioned anything to him. One of the reasons for wanting to build this garage is that if he sets the garage on grade in the back part of his lot, he will have a considerable hill to drive up in the winter time. In the spring, the rain would run right into the garage. There is no alley access so his garage would still come off 49th Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Du Rose stated that the only thing was that the siding would preferably be a vinyl siding. In two years, he would plan on changing the house siding to match that vinyl. Cedar is very expensive right now. Mr. Kuechle asked Ms. Bulthuis her thoughts about the siding not being compatible. Ms. Bulthuis asked what color the siding would be. Mr. Du Rose stated it would be gray. Ms. Bulthuis stated that it would be okay. Ms. Jackson asked if they should change the stipulation to read" with compatible siding." Dr. Vos stated that can put a little flexibility in there. The intent is to not put on something that looks very different from the house. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. Dr. Vos stated this is a reasonable place to put the garage. He would go with the hardship and vote in favor of this. It would be safer to go to 14-16.5 feet. Ms. Jackson stated that she agrees, and the street is at a higher level so it would look good. Mr. Kuechle stated that putting the garage on grade in the back yard is not very wise so he would be in favor of this. Mr. Jones stated that he concurs and this would be a good plus to the neighborhood. Going with that siding choice is a good idea also. Mr. Tynjala stated that he concurs. It is reasonable under the circumstances and seems like a nice addition. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to recommend approval of variance, VAR #01-06 with the following stipulations: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 PAGE 4 " 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with compatible siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Per Section 205.18.05. 4).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking drive aisle width for two-way tr ffic from 25 feet to 24 feet; and per Section 205.03.56 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to r uce the length of a parking stall without an overhang from 20 feet to 18 feet, to allow ad itional parking spaces on part of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30N, ange 24W, of the south principal meridian, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally locate at 7000 Central Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded b Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC'HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:47 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Medtronic is proposi to expand its parking capacity by constructing 24- foot wide drive aisles which is one foot nar ower than code requirements. Decreasing the parking stall length to 18 feet rather than th code required 20 feet will allow Medtronic to maximize the number of vehicles parked int a proposed expansion area. City Code requires 2 - way drive aisles to be a minimum of 25 feet i width and also requires parking stalls to be 20 feet in length. The Rice Creek campus of Me tronic located on Central Avenue would have the proposed parking expansion along the piece c sest to Highway 65. Medtronic property is zoned M-2, Industrial, as are the surrounding p operties. Rice Creek is to the south and Norton Creek is along the western edge of the property. Mr. Bolin stated the original building on this site w s constructed in 1969, and there have been numerous additions and remodels over the past 3 years. The petitioner's hardship summary states: "The existing site has limited open space a ailable for construction of additional surface parking. The most feasible location to add parking i west of the existing parking lot. This area was disturbed last year by construction. To stabilize he steep eroding slopes along Rice Creek, the remaining land in this area is wooded and sloped. The wooded areas provide a natural amenity and screening of TH 65. The proposed parkiri lot design is intended to minimize impact on this area." Mr. Bolin stated this portion of Rice Creek was piped a y ar ago and over the pipe is where the proposed expansion would happen. Medtronic has alrea y received approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District for this project. There is a 16-fo t drop down to Rice Creek immediately south of the parking lot, and it is not physical) possible to expand the parking further than what has already been proposed in order to inc ease the parking capacity. A parking deck would not fit on this site. Staff recommends approval to reduce the drive aisle width to 24 feet and the request to reduce the parking stall le, gth to 18 feet as physical characteristics of this site is a hardship. Medtronic is trying to reserve the natural area surrounding this property and parking is strictly for Medtronic a ployees so it has low turnover and regular users. Medtronic has not had any problems with th' 24 -foot drive aisles and 18 -foot stall lengths that were approved and currently in use at the new orad Headquarters. ABSTRACT Receipt # tj IId_T�!V ❑ Certified Copy Date/Tme: '3o ! %f Date Mailed Doc. Order ' ❑ Tax Liens / Releases of ❑ Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd ✓ by: Pins: C--' Recordability / Delgs: ❑ Transfer ❑ New Desc. Filing Fees: _ ❑ Division ❑ GAC Well Certificate ❑ Status ❑ Def. Spec Received this Date: Anoka County Recorder ❑ Other No Change Notes DOCUMENT NO. 1573808.0 ABSTRACT ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON MAY 30 2001 AT 5:00 PM AND WAS DULY RECORDED. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19-50 PAID. RECEIPT No. 2001049129 MAUREEN J. DEVINE ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES KL0 BY DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF T17LES G7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN NOTICE May 7, 2001 James Du Rose 113 49th Avenue Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Du Rose: 0 On�A, 2001, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved a request for a variance, VAR #01-06, to increase the height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached two -car garage on Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition, generally located at 113 49h Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with the compatible siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. You have one year from the date of the Appeals Commission 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 572-3595. Sincerely, Stacy u Planner Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to th,p,94ty of Fridley Planning Department by May 21, 2001. (` . / / V SB:Is / /Cbi ut ction taken City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #01-06 April 19, 2001 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: James Du Rose 113 49"' Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55421 Requested Action: Variance to increase the maximum height of an accessory structure. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 113 49`h Avenue NE Size: 9,000 sq. ft. .21 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 205.07.B.(3) requires a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet above grade for all accessory buildings. Zoning History: 1954 - Lot is platted. Home built pre -1949 1956 — Garage is built Legal Description of Property: Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: 49th Avenue would provide access to proposed garage. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROJECT Petitioner, Mr. Du Rose is seeking to increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to construct a detached 2 -stall garage. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "Our 1 % story home is a walkout with a sharp drop in grade of the backyard. If the garage were placed at the bottom of the hill this would create a north facing hill to tackle in the winter months. As well the resulting runoff of water due to snowmelt in the spring would case considerable damage to any building at the bottom of the driveway. " — Jim Du Rose SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff has no recommendation, as similar variances have been granted in the past. Similar variance granted: VAR #92-26 6181 Benjamin Street Height of an accessory structure increased to 19 feet. CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE CC -5/7/01 60 Day -5/21/01 (Location of Garage) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin and Stacy Bulthuis VAR #01-06 REQUEST Petitioner, James Du Rose, is seeking to increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to construct a detached 2 -stall garage. This structure would replace the current one stall garage. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "The request for a variance at the 113 49' Avenue NE is to replace the existing garage with a larger building located in the backyard. We are not able to attach a garage to our home because a brick fireplace is located on that side of our house. Therefore we need to place a garage behind the house in the backyard. Our I-% story home is a walkout with a sharp drop in grade in the backyard. If the garage were placed at the bottom of the hill this would create a north - facing hill to tackle in the winter months. As well the resulting runoff of water due to snowmelt in the spring would cause considerable damage to any building at the bottom of the driveway. - Jim Du Rose ANALYSIS The property is zoned R-1 Single family and is located on 49`h Avenue, east of Main Street NE. The lot is rectangularly shaped, with the home being "squared up" to and fronting on 49'h Avenue. The existing home was built prior to 1949 and the existing detached single stall garage was constructed in 1956. Existing home and detached garage Due to the severity of the slope in the rear yard of the property, the petitioner is requesting to set the garage back five feet from the home. Moving the garage back five feet would allow the petitioner to construct a two -stall garage without encroaching closer to the side yard lot lines line. City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners. View from the rear yard RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff has no recommendation, as similar variances have been granted in the past. Similar variance granted: VAR #92-26 6181 Benjamin Street Height of an accessory structure increased to 19 feet. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. ala 2. Garage shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with swe siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. Garage shall not be used for home occupation or living area. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the April 25, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Sue Jackson, Ken Vos, Jon Tynjala Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Bulthuis, Planner James Du Rose, 113 49th Avenue Kenny Homs, HGA APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28 2001 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the March 28, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING:VARIANCE REQUEST AR #01-06 BY,J2MEES.D-U,RQSE: Per Section 205.07.01 b(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached two -car garage on Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition, generally located at 113 49th Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioner is seeking to increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to construct a detached two car garage. The hardship summary states: "The request for the variance at 113 49th Avenue is to replace the existing garage with the larger building located in the backyard. We are not able to attach a garage to our home because of a brick fireplace that is located on that side of the house. Therefore we need to place the garage behind the house in the backyard." Ms. Bulthuis stated the proposed garage would be located five feet behind the home and would not encroach on any side yard lot lines. Staff has no recommendation as this request is within previously granted dimensions. A similar variance was granted in 1992 at 6181 Benjamin Street, and the height of that structure was increased to 19 feet. If the Commission approves the variance, staff recommends the following stipulations: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 1 PAGE 2 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with the same siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. Dr. Vos asked if there would still be room for the other accessory building in the back. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner has enough square footage for the other accessory building. Dr. Vos asked what the relative height from the house to the garage would be because there is a drop. Mr. Bolin stated it would be about the same. Mr. Kuechle asked if putting more fill around it would take care of the problem. Mr. Bolin stated it would be an option; but on the east side of the home, it would cause runoff problems for the neighboring property owner. It would also direct water towards the home if you raised the grade between the garage and the house. Mr. Kuechle asked what the alternative is except to do what they are doing. Is the option of placing more fill going to work? Mr. Bolin stated there really are no other options. The fill would not work because it would cause runoff problems. It may be possible to dig the lower level out an extra 2.5 feet, but that may also cause problems getting a door into the lower unit because of the grade change. The petitioner, Mr. Du Rose, stated the contractor set up the survey scopes, and the actual height to benefit him in the lowest level of the garage would be seven feet as opposed to the eight feet. Then, they would bring the garage lower to the grade so he would not have such a high apron to come up into the garage. If he kept it at eight feet to lower the garage so he has an apron that is lower, he would have to step down into the lower level of the garage quite a bit. By lowering it to the seven foot height, he would not need a sump pump. The grade of the floor would be level or just a step down from the entrance door. Dr. Vos asked if that changed the variance request. Mr. Du Rose stated that it probably would change it by a foot. That would drop it from 16.6 to 15.6 feet. Mr. Kuechle asked how far the garage floor would be above the present garage floor. Mr. Du Rose stated they would try to have it on the same grade as the old garage floor, and the new garage floor may be a little higher depending on the apron and grade. The accessory building there right now will face east and west. Dr. Vos asked which way the slope of the garage would go. Mr. Du Rose stated that it will have the same slope as the garage has right now. Looking from the street, it will have the same story and a half slope to the roof and have an eight foot pitch to the roof. From the street, it will almost be like looking at the side of his house. APPEALS'COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Kuechle asked if the roof would run north/south or east/west. Mr. Du Rose stated that it would run north/south just like the existing one. His house runs east and west. Mr. Jones asked if any neighbors had any comments. Mr. Du Rose stated that no neighbor has mentioned anything to him. One of the reasons for wanting to build this garage is that if he sets the garage on grade in the back part of his lot, he will have a considerable hill to drive up in the winter time. In the spring, the rain would run right into the garage. There is no alley access so his garage would still come off 49th. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Du Rose stated that the only thing was that the siding would preferably be a vinyl siding. In two years, he would plan on changing the house siding to match that vinyl. Cedar is very expensive right now. Mr. Kuechle asked Ms. Bulthuis her thoughts about the siding not being compatible. Ms. Bulthuis asked what color the siding would be. Mr. Du Rose stated it would be gray. Ms. Bulthuis stated that it would be okay. Ms. Jackson asked if they should change the stipulation to read" with compatible siding." Dr. Vos stated that can put a little flexibility in there. The intent is to not put on something that looks very different from the house. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. Dr. Vos stated this is a reasonable place to put the garage. He would go with the hardship and vote in favor of this. It would be safer to go to 14-16.5 feet. Ms. Jackson stated that she agrees, and the street is at a higher level so it would look good. Mr. Kuechle stated that putting the garage on grade in the back yard is not very wise so he would be in favor of this. Mr. Jones stated that he concurs and this would be a good plus to the neighborhood. Going with that siding choice is a good idea also. Mr. Tynjala stated that he concurs. It is reasonable under the circumstances and seems like a nice addition. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to recommend approval of variance, VAR #01-06 with the following stipulations: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 2001 • PAGE,4 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with compatible siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Per Section 205.8.05.D(4).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking drive aisle width for two way traffic from 25 feet to 24 feet; and per Section 205.03.56 of the Fridley ZoningCo , to reduce the length of a parking stall without an overhang from 20 feet to 18 feet, to a ow additional parking spaces on part of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Townsh 30N, Range 24W, of the south principal meridian, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally ocated at 7000 Central Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, sec ed by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VdjTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:47 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Medtronic is oposing to expand its parking capacity by constructing 24 - foot wide drive aisles which is one of narrower than code requirements. Decreasing the parking stall length to 18 feet rather han the code required 20 feet will allow Medtronic to maximize the number of vehicles pa ed in the proposed expansion area. City Code requires 2 - way drive aisles to be a minimum of feet in width and also requires parking stalls to be 20 feet in length. The Rice Creek campu of Medtronic located on Central Avenue would have the proposed parking expansion along the iece closest to Highway 65. Medtronic property is zoned M-2, Industrial, as are the surrou ding properties. Rice Creek is to the south and Norton Creek is along the western edge of the p operty. Mr. Bolin stated the original building on thik site was constructed in 1969, and there have been numerous additions and remodels over the ast 30 years. The petitioner's hardship summary states: "The existing site has limitectopen ace available for construction of additional surface parking. The most feasible location to add p rking is west of the existing parking lot. This area was disturbed last year by construction. To s abilize the steep eroding slopes along Rice Creek, the remaining land in this area is wooded and loped. The wooded areas provide a natural amenity and screening of TH 65. The propose parking lot design is intended to minimize impact on this area." Mr. Bolin stated this portion of Rice Creek was pied a year ago and over the pipe is where the proposed expansion would happen. Medtronic ha already received approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District for this project. There is 16 -foot drop down to Rice Creek immediately south of the parking lot, and it is not ph sically possible to expand the parking further than what has already been proposed in ord to increase the parking capacity. A parking deck would not fit on this site. Staff recomm nds approval to reduce the drive aisle width to 24 feet and the request to reduce the parking tall length to 18 feet as physical characteristics of this site is a hardship. Medtronic is t ing to preserve the natural area surrounding this property and parking is strictly for Med onic employees so it has low turnover and regular users. Medtronic has not had any problems ith the 24 -foot drive aisles and 18 -foot stall lengths that were approved and currently in use at t new World Headquarters. 1���taR - o � L J ,y `�- 01 t I `vim T £ I( 1A -Z _ ) Q s 2� �r .� rlv� t .Li L V J w 1.� . � L G7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287 April 2, 2001 Mr. James Du Rose 113 49' Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Du Rose: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. Based on the City's application schedule, we officially received an application for a variance on March 23, 2001. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete. Your variance hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley Appeals Commission meeting on April 25, 2001 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 572-3599. Sincerely, Paul Bolin Planning Coordinator PB C-01-48 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: N Property Identification Number. o 70�5�7lz�' Legal Description: Lot '7 Block I Tract/Addition Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: zvV'Sigr /Zvas 2 z Reason for Variance: Have ou operated a business in a city which req fired a psiness license? Yes No If Yes,�ich ity? 4 XV' f`6 If Yes, what type of business? -... Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No VVNN.Y•V.VV V.V.V.ItiA/V/Y.VN�I4r11YVVA/.V.V.V.V1V.ViVNtiN�/IrNVVNNti.V.VA/.VY..V.V.V•VV.VNIr.VN.V•V.V�/iViVq/A//r FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: F owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: J D // 06 4Wa JAA1 ADDRESS: /V& DAME HONSIGNATURE/DA PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:Amfv,6 4/705 ADDRESS: // - y� AJ AV. DAYTIME PHONE: &-l-633-AIZL SIGNATURE/D T is V•V/rV.V.Vtiti.V.VVN'VVVNtitiM.V1V.VVVVNNtiiYiVVVV.V.Y.V.V.V'VIY'V.ViV .ViVIV YiV.V VVIVVIVYV.V MiV .VM.V Section of City Code: FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: Receipt #: _ Received By: Application Number: 61—!J4 - Scheduled Appeals Commission D te: Scheduled City Council Date: 5 I 10 Day Applicatio Complete No ifi ation Date: D 60 Day Date: 5 2'l 10 1 City of Fridley Land Use Application Process 1 60 Day Agency Action Law Application Date Appeals Commission Meet 60 Day Window Starts Recommendation to Council ! 21-40 Daysil City Council Decision Approval or Denial 50-60 Days ! LApproved, Action Taken Letter i i i Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments Tabled, 60 More Days Denied Application Complete 10 Day Notice Submit Complete Public Hearings: Application and Variance Materials Vacations Lot Splits Plats Rezonings Zoning Amendments Wetland Replacements Comprehensive Plan Special Use Permits City Council Decision Approval or Denial 50-60 Days ! LApproved, Action Taken Letter i i i Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments Tabled, 60 More Days Denied To: The City Of Fridley Re: Requested Variance For The Property at 113- 49" Ave. N.E. Request fob a variance at the property named above is to replace the existing garage with a larger building located in the backyard. We are not able to attach a garage to our home because a brick fireplace is located on that side of our house. Therefore we need to place a garage behind the house in the backyard. Our 1-Y2 story home is a walkout with a sharp drop in the grade of the backyard. If the garage were placed at the bottom of the hill this would create a north -facing hill to tackle in the winter months. As well the resulting runoff of water due to snowmelt in the spring would cause considerable damage to any building at the bottom of the driveway. Placing the garage in the backyard but level with the existing driveway would involve using about 12 courses of block above grade on the north side. Backfilling the foundation with dirt would delay installing the cement floor until the dirt had time to settle. Many contractors have informed me that this process could take up to a year. I would like to install a span Crete floor in the garage that would allow storage area below the floor. This storage area could house a workroom but would not be accessible for any motorized vehicle. To maintain the continuity of the rooflines the garage would have the same roofline as the house. As a result the final product would be a garage that stands 1-Y2 stories just as the house. Enclosed you will find a complete set of plans for you to review. These plans include everything needed to complete this garage. The driveway would remain as it is now with street access to 49th Avenue. Alley entrances do not exist anywhere on 49h avenue. We do hope that this answers any questions that you may have regarding our proposed garage. If any further questions arise please feel free to contact us. Work phone 651-6334422 Home phone 763- 572-8822. Thank 17-0 City of City of Fridley Fridley Public Hearing Notice PILOT 49TH AVENUE ' M �- 48TH AVENUE w w H W W C) O R-1 - One Family Units A �R 2 - Tvw Family Units Fricoey GIS o R3 _ General nn�tipe Unts z County GlAssessi R- - &Me Home Parks PM4 Public RR -Railroads 4W RDm - Plaed Unit feveloprrent W Variance Request, VAR #01-06 N o 40 S2 _�'I C) S.3 Heavy Ind, Onaway Addition WG -4w Local Business aQD C-2- General Business • C -3 - General rig 4W G111- Gertz Office PILOT 49TH AVENUE ' M �- 48TH AVENUE w w H W W C) K1 - ugM Industrial K2 - Heavy Industrial N Sources: Frimey Banning 40 M,3 - Outdoor IrdenaW Heavy Industrial Fricoey GIS 40 �v County GlAssessi PM4 Public RR -Railroads Aricka Coin ng Variance Request, VAR #01-06 N o Street''ins113 Lot / Parol e«rnaari� 49th Avenue C) "'ate'Features Jim DuBose CD I�sm� wav CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Residents within 350 feet of 113 49" Avenue CASE NUMBER: VAR #01-06 APPLICANT: James DuRose 113 49' Avenue Fridley, MN 55421 Petitioner or representative must be at meeting. PURPOSE: To increase the maximum height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached 2 -car garage LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 113 49th Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition DATE AND TIME Appeals Commission Meeting, Wednesday, April 25, OFHEARING: 2001, at 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator, or Stacy Bulthuis, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 571- 1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMMODATION: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than April 18, 2001. (TDD 612-572-3534) ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Stacy Bulthuis, Planner, at 572-3595. Mailing Date: April 13, 2001 DREYER CAROLYN L KWATERA FRANK T & DONNELLA SIMENGAARD ARNE & WANDA M 173 49TH AVE NE 161 49TH AVE NE 149 49TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 FRIDLEY,MN 55421 FRIDLEY,MN 55421 SURA KAREN A 137 49TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 PAULUS GARY 101 49TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 SNIPSTAD VIRGIL L 124 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 PYKA LORA L 160 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 RYMAN JOSEPH M & CHRISTINA 112 GIBRALTAR RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 STEFFEN BRUCE M & DEBORAH 148 GIBRALTAR RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 SANDBERG BETH R 149 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 BAKER STEPHEN T & JANICE R 113 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 NGUYEN CHAU VAN 125 49TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 BUKOWSKI THOMAS L 100 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 BATCHA JAMES L & SANDRA K 136 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 BACKSTROM JAMES J & JOLINE L 172 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 CRUSE PATRICIA L 124 GIBRALTAR RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 KRUEGER CLARENCE E & M L 173 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 DUFOUR JEWEL M 137 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 COTTER JOHN T 101 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 DUROSE JAMES F ETAL 113 49TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 TOLLEFSON JEROME A & LOIS A 112 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 KELLNER CLEMENS L & VERENA 148 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 HOLLEY NADINE C 100 GIBRALTAR RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 PADILLA MICHAEL S & JULIE A 136 GIBRALTAR RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 VOLSEN DONALD L & P B 161 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 TYO DUANE & MARY L 125 PILOT AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 THOENNES THEODORE F & E J 4880 2 1/2 ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TIONGSON GLORIA & DARIO JESKA MELONIE K & SCOTT W KAMMERER GARY J 4868 2 1/2 ST NE 4851 2ND ST NE 4861 2ND ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRAATEN ADLORE G & M A GREEVERS R R & KADER TERRY LEONARD JAMES M & DEENA K 4871 2ND ST NE 4881 2ND ST NE 4880 2ND ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SLATOSKI WALTER A 4868 2ND ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KLEMME MARK H & SHARON K 4845 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 STENE MATTHEW A 4881 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 CURRENT RESIDENT 4850 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 YOUNGREN CARL O & KAREN L 4856 2ND ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HARTMANN JOHN J 4857 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 CURRENT RESIDENT ,� 4900 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PHILBLAD POLLY A & DRISCOLL K 4844 2ND ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ZERWAS MICHAEL & OLSON CHER 4869 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55421 SHAMROCK INVESTMENTS II LLC 701 24TH AVE SE MPLS,MN 55414 /f CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the April 25, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Sue Jackson, Ken Vos, Jon Tynjala Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator StacKy Bulthuis, Planner James Du Rose, 113 49th Avenue Kenny Horns, HGA APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28 2001 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the March 28, 2001, Appeals Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #01-06 BY JAMES DU ROSE: Per Section 205.07.01 b(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to allow the construction of a new detached two -car garage on Lot 7, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition, generally located at 113 49th Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioner is seeking to increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 14 feet to 16.5 feet to construct a detached two car garage. The hardship summary states: "The request for the variance at 113 49th Avenue is to replace the existing garage with the larger building located in the backyard. We are not able to attach a garage to our home because of a brick fireplace that is located on that side of the house. Therefore we need to place the garage behind the house in the backyard." Ms. Bulthuis stated the proposed garage would be located five feet behind the home and would not encroach on any side yard lot lines. Staff has no recommendation as this request is within previously granted dimensions. A similar variance was granted in 1992 at 6181 Benjamin Street, and the height of that structure was increased to 19 feet. If the Commission approves the variance, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with the same siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. Dr. Vos asked if there would still be room for the other accessory building in the back. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner has enough square footage for the other accessory building. Dr. Vos asked what the relative height from the house to the garage would be because there is a drop. Mr. Bolin stated it would be about the same. Mr. Kuechle asked if putting more fill around it would take care of the problem. Mr. Bolin stated it would be an option; but on the east side of the home, it would cause runoff problems for the neighboring property owner. It would also direct water towards the home if you raised the grade between the garage and the house. Mr. Kuechle asked what the alternative is except to do what they are doing. Is the option of placing more fill going to work? Mr. Bolin stated there really are no other options. The fill would not work because it would cause runoff problems. It may be possible to dig the lower level out an extra 2.5 feet, but that may also cause problems getting a door into the lower unit because of the grade change. The petitioner, Mr. Du Rose, stated the contractor set up the survey scopes, and the actual height to benefit him in the lowest level of the garage would be seven feet as opposed to the eight feet. Then, they would bring the garage lower to the grade so he would not have such a high apron to come up into the garage. If he kept it at eight feet to lower the garage so he has an apron that is lower, he would have to step down into the lower level of the garage quite a bit. By lowering it to the seven foot height, he would not need a sump pump. The grade of the floor would be level or just a step down from the entrance door. Dr. Vos asked if that changed the variance request. Mr. Du Rose stated that it probably would change it by a foot. That would drop it from 16.6 to 15.6 feet. Mr. Kuechle asked how far the garage floor would be above the present garage floor. Mr. Du Rose stated they would try to have it on the same grade as the old garage floor, and the new garage floor may be a little higher depending on the apron and grade. The accessory building there right now will face east and west. Dr. Vos asked which way the slope of the garage would go. Mr. Du Rose stated that it will have the same slope as the garage has right now. Looking from the street, it will have the same story and a half slope to the roof and have an eight foot pitch to the roof. From the street, it will almost be like looking at the side of his house. Mr. Kuechle asked if the roof would run north/south or east/west. Mr. Du Rose stated that it would run north/south just like the existing one. His house runs east and west. Mr. Jones asked if any neighbors had any comments. Mr. Du Rose stated that no neighbor has mentioned anything to him. One of the reasons for wanting to build this garage is that if he sets the garage on grade in the back part of his lot, he will have a considerable hill to drive up in the winter time. In the spring, the rain would run right into the garage. There is no alley access so his garage would still come off 49th Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Du Rose stated that the only thing was that the siding would preferably be a vinyl siding. In two years, he would plan on changing the house siding to match that vinyl. Cedar is very expensive right now. Mr. Kuechle asked Ms. Bulthuis her thoughts about the siding not being compatible. Ms. Bulthuis asked what color the siding would be. Mr. Du Rose stated it would be gray. Ms. Bulthuis stated that it would be okay. Ms. Jackson asked if they should change the stipulation to read" with compatible siding." Dr. Vos stated that can put a little flexibility in there. The intent is to not put on something that looks very different from the house. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE; ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. Dr. Vos stated this is a reasonable place to put the garage. He would go with the hardship and vote in favor of this. It would be safer to go to 14-16.5 feet. Ms. Jackson stated that she agrees, and the street is at a higher level so it would look good. Mr. Kuechle stated that putting the garage on grade in the back yard is not very wise so he would be in favor of this. Mr. Jones stated that he concurs and this would be a good plus to the neighborhood. Going with that siding choice is a good idea also. Mr. Tynjala stated that he concurs. It is reasonable under the circumstances and seems like a nice addition. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to recommend approval of variance, VAR #01-06 with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with compatible siding and color scheme. 3. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. 4. The garage shall not be used for home occupation or as living area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #01-07. BY MEDTRONIC, INC.: Per Section 205.18.05.D(4).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking drive aisle width for two-way traffic from 25 feet to 24 feet; and per Section 205.03.56 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the length of a parking stall without an overhang from 20 feet to 18 feet, to allow additional parking spaces on part of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30N, Range 24W, of the south principal meridian, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7000 Central Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:47 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Medtronic is proposing to expand its parking capacity by constructing 24 - foot wide drive aisles which is one foot narrower than code requirements. Decreasing the parking stall length to 18 feet rather than the code required 20 feet will allow Medtronic to maximize the number of vehicles parked in the proposed expansion area. City Code requires 2 - way drive aisles to be a minimum of 25 feet in width and also requires parking stalls to be 20 feet in length. The Rice Creek campus of Medtronic located on Central Avenue would have the proposed parking expansion along the piece closest to Highway 65. Medtronic property is zoned M-2, Industrial, as are the surrounding properties. Rice Creek is to the south and Norton Creek is along the western edge of the property. Mr. Bolin stated the original building on this site was constructed in 1969, and there have been numerous additions and remodels over the past 30 years. The petitioner's hardship summary states:The existing site has limited open space available for construction of additional surface parking. The most feasible location to add parking is west of the existing parking lot. This area was disturbed last year by construction. To stabilize the steep eroding slopes along Rice Creek, the remaining land in this area is wooded and sloped. The wooded areas provide a natural amenity and screening of TH 65. The proposed parking lot design is intended to minimize impact on this area." Mr. Bolin stated this portion of Rice Creek was piped a year ago and over the pipe is where the proposed expansion would happen. Medtronic has already received approval from the Rice