VAR 87-12STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
In the Matter of a Variance, -VAR -487-12
VARIANCE
The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of
Fridley and was heard on the 14th day of _April , 19-a2-,
on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning
Ordinance, for the following described property: Increase the percentage of
the area of a lot covered by the main building and all accessory buildings
from 25% to 27.50; to reduce the side yard setback on a street side of a corner
from 17.5 feet to 12 feet to allow the construction of an addition to an
existing dwelling that is located with an existing 12 foot side yard, all
on Lot 2 and the west half of Lot 3, Block 1, City View Addition, the same
being 101 - 57th Place N.E.
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or
reasons:
See Appeals Commission minutes of April 14, 1987.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
CITY OF FRIDLEY )
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, Shirley A. Haapala, 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 han aj:,the City of
Fridly, Minnesota, in e County of Anoka on the day of
19
Ij
DRAFTED BY:
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
SHIRLEY A. HAA ALA, CITY CffERK
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be
considered void if not used within that period
(SEAL)
0
G7YOF
FRIDLEY
. CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
On April 144, 1987 , the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved
your request for variance requests, VAR #87-12, by Richard anfi _ildith
Bistodeau, pursuant to Chapter 205.21.5, C, of the Fridley City Code, to
increase the percentage of the area of a lot covered by the main building and
all accessory buildings from 25% to 27.5%; and pursuant to Chapter 205.21.5,
D, 3a, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side Yard setback on a street
side of a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 12 feet, to allow the construction of
an addition to an existing dwelling that is located with an existing 12 foot
side yard, all on lot 2 and the west half of lot 3, block 1, City View Addition,
the same being 101 - 57th Place N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432, with
the following stipulations:
- NONE -
If the work has not cotced within one (1) year after granting this variance
then the variance shallcome null and void.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning
Department at 571-3450.
ly
rrel Clark "f
Chief Building Official
DC/ln
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one
copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by
I, , concur with the action taken.
I
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETIH
4.
PRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 1
would be no distractions from the appearance of the neighborhood, so h
felt the spirit of the lode was being met, and he would vote in fav
the variance.
Ms. Savage stated she agreed that the spirit of the code was eing met
because of the park being next to the proposed addition. a would vote in
favor of granting the variance.
Dr. Vos stated he had no problem with this varian as requested.
Mr. Barna stated he agreed with the other Co Kissioners. If they took the
technicality of the narrow side of the to eing the front of the lot, and
allowed the front of the house to be front of the house, they would then
have a side yard which was required 5 ft. and only a 1/2 ft. variance
would be needed.
MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE, SECON BY MR. SHEREK, TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST,
VAR ##87-10, BY ANTHONY KPSL, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.07.3, D, 3a, OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO D REASE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 31 FEET TO
ZEATO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE INTO LIVING
THE CO R CTION OF A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOT 20, BLOCK 4, RICEH AD TION, THE SAME BEING 194 - 69TH AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY,
, 432,W7 THE STIPULATION THAT NO WINDOWS BE PLACED IN THE WEST
ADDITION.CE VOTE, L VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
RIED UNANI OUSLY.
i
CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS, VAR #87-12, BY RICHARD AND JUDITH-
BISTODEAU, PURS AN O CHAPTER 20 0
INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AREA -OF A LOT COVERED BY THE MAIN BUILDING
AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDII1S FROM 25% TO 27.5%; AND, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
205.21.5 D 3a OF HE F IDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETS CK
ON A STREET SIDE OF P CORNER LOT FROM 17.5 FEET TO 12 FEET TO ALLOW THE
MOTION BY DR. VOS, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:23 P.M.
Vice -Chairperson Barra read the Administrative Staff Report:
AD14INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
101 - 57th Place
VAR #87-12
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETII
APRIL 14, 1987
.A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
PAGE 11
Section 205.21.5 C, requires that not more than 25% of the area of
a lot shall be covered by the main buildinq and all accessory buildings.
"Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
Section 205.21.5 D, 3a, requires that the side yard width on a street
side of a corner lot shall be not less than 17.5 feet.
Public purposeserved by this requirement is to maintain a higher
degree of traffi visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroach-
ment into the ne ghbor's front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"Our plans for r modeling, in order to work in the best manner and
maintain the bes aesthetic appearance, need to maintain the sane line
as original hous ."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The east half of;the Clain Street right-of-way adjacent to this lot
is 40 feet --7 feet wider than the right-of-way to the north. We had
thought we could vacate the easterly 7 feet of the 40 feet. However, a
research of the records indicate that the City owns the 40 feet in fee.
Consequently, the process to accomplish the transfer of fee title would
be very lengthy.
If the 7 feet cold have been added to the lot, it would have eliminated
the necessity for any variances.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, the staff has no
s-ipulations to suggest.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner's house was on the corner of 57th and Main
Street running north and south. The right of way to Main Street from the
petitioner's lot north Was 66 ft. wide and 33 ft. from the center line. At
one time before this house was built, the total 40 foot lot which was adjacent
to the petitioner's of was deeded to the City. That was why there was an
additional 7 feet right-of-way because the City took the who1Q 40 ft. lot
instead of a 33 foot lot.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner would like to add on a family room, a master
bedroon and bathroom and an entryway off the back of the house next to the
garage.
Mr. Barna asked how any feet there was from the blacktopped surface of
Main Street to the w sterly side of the addition.
APPEALS COMMISSION 11EETI
APRIL 14. 1987
PAGE 12
fir. Bistodeau stated it was 29.9 ft. to the southern corner from the blacktop,
31.1 ft. to the northern corner from the blacktop, and about 30.8 ft. to the
addition from the blacktop. So, it was approx. 30 ft. from the curb line to
the existing structu e.
11r:+Bistodeau statedit was definitely an unusual situation. He stated he
has lived in this ho se for 22 years. His fanily was growing faster than the
house could accommod te. The fact that they have spent a lot of money on the
existing structure a ready and the fact that they could not find a better house
or a nicer location, they have decided to add on to the existing structure.
He stated they could alter the plans to try to avoid the variance, but it just
didn't work as well s this plan did by maintaining the same line as the
original house.
Dr. Vos stated he ha looked at the lot, and it seemed to be quite a distance
from Main Street. H asked that since the City owned 7 ft. of right-of-way,
what did the City pl n to do with it?
Mr. Clark stated the City would be willing to vacate that 7 ft. if it was a
simple procedure. N rmally, right-of-way can be vacated through city ordinance.
In this case, the prperty was owned in fee and the City cannot just sell it
to to the property oirner. They have to go through a process of hearings. It
was a lengthy process and possibly a costly process for the petitioner who
wished to purchase t at 7 ft. It was much simpler to go through the variance
process. tie stated here were no plans for that 7 ft.
MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE SECONDED BY DR. VOS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8: 6 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated this eemed like a reasonable request. Since the City owned
the 7 ft., there was not much the petitioner could do and it was no fault of
the petitioner's.
Ms. Savage, Mr. Sherk, and 41r. Barna agreed with Dr. Vos and stated they hid
no problem with appr ving the variance as requested.
140TION BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUESTS,
VAR #i87-12, BY RICH D AND JUDITH BISTODEAU, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5, C, -
OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AREA OF A LOT
COVERED BY THE MAIN BUILDING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FRO14 259 TO 27.5%;
AND,.PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5, D, 3a, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE
THE SIDE YARD SETBAC. ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER FROM 17.5 FEET TO 12 FEET
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRU TION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING THAT IS
LOCATED WITH AN EXIS NG 12 FOOT SIDE YARD, ALL ON LUT 2 AND THE WEST HALF OF
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CITY IEW'ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 101 - 57TH PLACE N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 5 432.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
101— 57'�- Pl a.c—
APPEALS_ COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 9
We have four cars and try to keep them in the driveway. Our daughter
..and son each have their car parked in the driveway. With the driveway
being moved over, we would also keep half of the present driveway for
their cars.
I we can move our den from the basement and all of the file cabinets
to is extended room upstairs, we would be able to put a bathroom
downs airs in that present area of the den -office.
Our son ttends a local college and lives at home. Our daughter attends
a college ut of state but will be living at home beginning this May
because she is transferring to a local college and will be living at
home again.
C., ADMININISTRATIV STAFF REVIEW:
This house faces th'k side street. The view garage is in the rear of the
lot. 'Also, adjacent to the rear lot line is a city park. The request
has been reviewed by zNe City Parks Department and they would have no
objection to this reque .
If approved, Staff recomme►hos that no windows be placed in the west wall.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner w Id like to convert his existing garage to
living space and add a two -car gara a toward the park, resulting in a 4.5 ft. setback
to the west property line. The park 'as a passive park. There was some play-
ground equipment, but no athletic fund ions. There might be children or
adults playing Frisbee or Jarts or some ing like that, and that was the
reason for the stipulation of no windows n the west wall.
Mr. Clark stated they get into the semantics of whether this was really the
side yard or the rear yard. The legal front the �Idt'was the short side•
of the lot when it is a corner lot, so the fron yard was on -Rice Creek Blvd.
and the garage would be bijilt in the rear yard. f this was'the side yard,
then the garage could be built within 5 ft. of the roperty line. With the
house across the street, because of the shape of the lot, it was the side yard.
Mr. Krall stated the main reason for their request wasneed more floor
space.
Mr. Barna stated be felt the .variance was created by the wa the house faces
on the lot.
140TION BY MS. SAVAGE, SECONDED BY MR- SHEREK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLI HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED E PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
-Mr-. Sherek stated he felt this was a good plan. If the designation of the
front and side yards were more appropriate, there would be no problem. There
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 10
would be no distractions from the appearance of the neighborhood, so he
fe the spirit of the code was being met, and he would vote in favor of
the htiance.
Ms...Savage tated she agreed that the spirit of the code was being met
because of t ark being next to the proposed addition. She would vote in
favor of grantin the variance.
Dr. Vos stated he had ltd problem with this variance as requested.
Mr. Barna stated he agreedh the other Commissioners. If they took the
technicality of the narrow side f the lot being the front of the lot, and
allowed the front of the house to the front of the house, they would then
have a side yard which was required a 5 ft. and only a 1/2 ft. variance
would be needed.
MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE, SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK, APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST,
VAR #�87-10, BY ANTHONY KRALL, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 05.07.3, D, 3a, OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO DECREASE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD TBACK FROM 31 FEET TO
4.45 FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING AGE INTO LIVING
SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOT , BLOCK 4, RICE
CREEK NORTH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 294 - 69TH AVENUE N.E., DLEY,
MINNESOTA, 55432,WITH THE STIPULATION THAT NO WINDOWS BE PLACED THE WEST
WALL OF THE ADDITION.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS, VAR #87-12, BY RICHARD AND JUDITH
BISTODEAU, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5. THE FRIDLEY—CITYD�
MOTION BY DR. VOS, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A .VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:23 P.M.
Vice -Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
101 - 57th Place
VAR #87-12
Y
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 11
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
.'Section 205.21.5, C, requires that not more.than 25% of the area of
a lot shall be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings.
-Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
Section 205.21.5, D, 3a, requires that the side yard width on a street
side of a corner lot shall be not less than 17.5 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher
degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroach-
ment into the neighbor's front yard.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"Our plans for remodeling, in order to work in the best manner and
maintain the best aesthetic appearance, need to maintain the same line
as original house."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The east half of the Main Street right-of-way adjacent to this lot
is 40 feet --7 feet wider than the right-of-way to the north. We had
thought we could vacate the easterly 7 feet of the 40 feet. however, a
research of the records indicate that the City owns the 40 feet in fee.
Consequently, the process to accomplish the transfer of fee title would
be very lengthy.
If the 7 feet could have been added to the lot, it would have eliminated
the necessity for any variances.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, the staff has no
stipulations to suggest.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner's house was on the corner of 57th and Main
Street running north and south. The right of way to Main Street from the
petitioner's lot north was 66 ft. wide and 33 ft. from the center line. At
one time before this house was built, the total 40 foot lot which was adjacent
to the petitioner's lot was deeded to the City. That was why there was an
additional 7 feet right-of-way because the City took the whole 40 ft. lot
instead of a 33 foot lot.
Mr. Clark stated the petitioner would like to add on a family room, a master
bedroom and bathroom, and an entryway off the back of the house next to the
garage.
Mr. Barna asked how many feet there was from the blacktopped surface of
Main Street to the westerly side of the addition.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 12
Mr. Bistodeau stated it was 29.9 ft. to the southern corner from the blacktop,
31.1 ft. to the northern corner from the blacktop, and about 30.8 ft. to.the
addition from the blacktop. So, it was approx. 30 ft. from the -curb line to
the existing structure.
Mr.'Bistodeau stated it was definitely an unusual situation. He stated he
has lived'in this house for 22 years. His family was growing faster than the
house could accommodate. The fact that they have spent a lot of money on the
existing structure already and the fact that they could not find a better house
or a nicer location, they have decided to add on to the existing structure.
He stated they could alter the plans to try to avoid the variance, but it just
didn't work as well as this plan did by maintaining the same line as the
original house.
Dr. Vos stated he had looked at the lot, and it seemed to be quite a distance
from Plain Street. He asked that since the City owned 7 ft. of right-of-way,
what 'did the City plan to do with it?
Mr. Clark stated the City would be willing to vacate that 7 ft. if it was a
simple procedure. Normally, right-of-way can be vacated through city ordinance.
In this case, the property was owned in fee and the City cannot just sell it
to to the property owner. They have to go through a process of hearings. It
was a lengthy process and possibly a costly process for the petitioner who
wished to purchase that 7 ft. It was much simpler to go through the variance
process. He stated there were no plans for that 7 ft.
MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE, SECONDED BY DR. VOS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:36 P.M.
I
Dr. Vos stated this seemed like a reasonable request. Since the City owned
the 7 ft., there was not much the petitioner could do and it was no fault of
the peti?ioner's.
Ms. Savage, Mr. Sherek, and 14r. Barna agreed with Dr. Vos and stated they had
no problem with approving the variance as requested.
MOTION BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUESTS,
VAR #87-12, BY RICHARD AND JUDITH BISTODEAU, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5, C,
OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AREA OF A LOT
COVERED BY THE MAIN BUILDING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 25% TO 27.5%;
AND,.PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5, D, 3a, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE
THE SIDE'YARD SETBACK ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER FROM 17.5 FEET TO 12 FEET
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING THAT IS
LOCATED WITH AN EXISTING 12 FOOT SIDE YARD., ALL ON. LOT 2 AND THE WEST. HALF OF
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 101 - 57TH PLACE N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 55432.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Iten #5, April 14, 1987
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
101 - 57th RACE
VAR #87-12
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.21.5, C, requires that not more than 25% of the area of a
lot shall be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
Section 205.21.5, D, 3a, requires that the side yard width on a street
side of a corner lot shall be not less than 17.5 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher
degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight"
encroachment into the neighbor's front yard.
B. SZkTED HARDSHIP:
"Our plans for remodeling, in order to work in the best manner and
maintain the best aesthetic appearance, need to maintain the same line
as original. house. "
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The east half of the Main Street right-of-way adjacent to this lot is
40 feet 7 feet wider than the right-of-way to the north. We had
thought we could vacate the easterly 7 feet of the 40 feet. However, a
research of the records indicate that the City owns the 40 feet in fee.
Consequently, the process to accomplish the transfer of fee title would
be very lengthy.
If the 7 feet could have been added to the lot it would have eliminated
the necessity for any variances.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, the staff has no
stipulations to suggest.
s
?�
CITY F FRIDLEY"..
6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E.
VARIANCE
REQUEST FORM
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
VARIANCE #
VARIANCE FEE $60.00
RECEIPT # G
SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE 4/ M 87
PROPERTY INFORMATION
PROPERTY ADDRESS S"7 f/ iQ C C -------
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
.:2 uJ / 6-�Z6-1-2
LOT � BLOCK TRACT/ADDrrm f%r a u)
PRESENT ZONING �� 5- I Di 'y,
VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a pXat or survey of the property showing building,
variance), where applicable.
Reduce corner lot side yard ,tetW cck from the required 17.5' to 12' to allow the
construction of an addition_,to an a 'sting dwelling that is located with an
existing 2 side yard. Loi coverage ariance from 2 percent to 27.,5 percent
Section of the Code: _a _
List specific hardship(s) whNh require the *#riance(s):
FEE OWNED INFORMA71ON
v
#############
NAME (please print) _K i Ckta e_ � {�l'I . 15 � 0 0�d�PHONE 57`a0039
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
Note to t
#########
PETITIONER INFORMATION
DATE 112-o 7
NAME (please print) PHONE
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE DATE
APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE
CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE
STIPULATIONS:
FOE CITY USE ONLY
Notirioation or petitioner and property owners within 200 Peet:
_
I
{
1
.
I
I
1
L
I
I
1
1
1
I
\_
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
COMNNSSION APPLICATION REVIEW
Department Number File Date Meeting Date
CI•Y OF Planning 20 3/25/87 4/14/87
FMDLEY
File Address/Description VAR #87-12 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST
lol - 57th Place N.E. RETURN TO PLANNING
[BDARYL COMMENTS
l C.V\jw, 2 rev p r, O Ski
EBB 1 E Pro p� o,; �,�,,� �l� �-�-
M r 01 do�v i U�
uv ;,� rz C��' 7 +t,, ciAVYZ,0� d.We.110 .
DEBBIE �1w �R v ��� ��5 `% Z ®� '� 5� `�� 1 /ve
J O H N'I/ v® owe-- +� �o �-� C�� � 04.,''v) So -i-�s
UDE B 1 E
ARREL ICT aVe A
DEBBIE
LYDE
DEBBIE
MARK
--DEBBIE-1
LEON
– DEBBIE �—
VAR #87-12
Judith Bistodeau
Hanock Life Insurance Co.
Box 111
Boston, MA 11170
Donald Findel1
6676 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
110 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
John Keppler
100 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Susan Griener
5775 Main Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Berton Cross
Box 26
Howard, SD 57349
Thomas Wolff
5296 Matterhorn Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Resident
5770 - 2nd Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Ronald Brace
5765 Main Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Richard and Judith Bistodeau
101 - 57th Palace N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Leonard Mostrarn
131 - 57th Place'N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
MAILING LIST
William Schuur
215 - 57th Place N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432"
App6als 3/31/87
Council
Robert Russe 1
3025 Jersey kvenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55427
Resident
219 - 57th Place N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Helen Szypli ki
233 - 57th Place N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
217 - 57th P ce N.E,
Fridley, MN 55432
Lyndale TermLnal
4567 West 80 Street
Minneapolis, MN 55437
Resident
210 - 57th P ace N.E.
Fridley, MN 155432
Paul Laduke
216 —57th P ace N,E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Harry Berkho z
218 - 57th P ace N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
226 - 57th i
Fridley, MN
venue N,E.
55432
MAIM
CORMA77ON
"5 PEAWMV4W AV~ S&M •WA AAllLF9.WAfWWA saws �"
CINOF
FRIDLEY
CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
will conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University
Avenue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 14, 1987, in regard to the
following matter:
Consideration of variance requests, VAR #87-12, by Richard
and Judith Bistodeau, pursuant to Chapter 205.21.5, C, of the
Fridley City Code, to increase the percentage of the area of
a lot covered by the main building and all accessory
buildings from 25% to 27.5%; and, pursuant to Chapter
205.21.5, D, 3a, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side
yard setback on a street side of a corner lot from 17.5 feet
to 12 feet, to allow the construction of an addition to an
existing dwelling that is located with an existing 12 foot
side yard, all on Lot 2 and the west half of Lot 3, Block 1,
City View Addition, the same being 101 - 57th Place N. E. ,
Fridley, Minnesota, 55432.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be
given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place.
DDNALD BEIZOLD
CHA]RFAN
APPEALS COMMISSION
Note: 7he Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request,
unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or
the petitioner does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of
these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the
Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission.