VAR 96-21Ar °
raw
CITYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Betty Loewen
1600 - 2nd Avenue South
Anoka, MN 55303
Dear Ms. Loewen:
September 20, 1996
On September 16, 1996, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a
variance, VAR #96-21, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to
allow the relocation of a 22' x 23' detached garage, on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27,
Hyde Park, generally located'at 276-78 58th.Avenue N.E.
Approval of this variance request is contingent upon one stipulation:
A new garage shall be constructed, or the existing garage modified in a way
that will allow it to be attached to the structure on this property.
You have one year from the date of City Council action to initiate construction. If you
cannot begin construction in 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 572-3590.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of
Fridley Planning Department by October 4, 1996.
Concur with action taken.
•
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SE
•
1996 PAGE 7
MOTION by Councilman Billings t request staff to notify the
applicant, in writing, and accordance with the sixty day
statute, that the City Couris requesting additional time to act
on this request becaus the need to review the traffic study.
The letter sho also contain the fact that the petitioner has
agreed to t item being tabled to the City Council meeting on
Septembe 0, 1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a
voice ote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
un mously.
6. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96-21, BY BETTY LOEWEN, TO REDUCE THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FEET TO ALLOW THE
RELOCATION OF A 22 FOOT BY 23 FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 276-78 58TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3):
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for
a variance to allow a reduced setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to
allow the placement of a two car garage at 276-78 58th Avenue N.E.
The petitioner, Ms. Loewen, has requested the variance in order to
preserve trees and to open lawn area. on the east side of the home
she intends to purchase. This property was recently.the subject of
a lot split. As a condition of the lot split, the property owner
was required to remove an existing garage from the newly created
building site at the corner of Third Street and 57th.Avenue.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval.
Staff also recommended approval with the stipulation that either a
new garage shall be constructed or the existing garage modified in
a way that will allow it to be attached to the structure on this
property.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR
#96-21, with the stipulation that either a new garage shall be
constructed or the existing garage modified in a way that will
allow it to be attached to the structure on this property.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanjaro—usly.
7. APPROVE INSTALLATION OF
ANTENNAE AND EQUIPMENT A7
SITE); REQUESTED BY
COMMUNICATION SERVICES
. PAUL UTILITY
SENTING SPRINT SPEC
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request by
SBA, representing Sprint ectrum, to install eight, ten -foot high
personal communication services antennae and equipment at 7504
Alden Way. The ante ae is considered to be an accessory use in a
public district. part of this installation, there will be a 25
foot by 30 foo enclosure constructed at the base of the tower that
will house ansformer equipment for control of the antennae. The
visual im ct will be minimal and would not have a negative impact
on adj ent properties.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 PAGE 8
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if anyone in the neighborhood was
notified of this request.
Mr. Hickok stated that this is for an accessory use wh'ch does not
require notification. /
Councilwoman Bolkcom felt the residents should bF notified that
this would be going into their neighborhood.
i
MOTION by Councilman Billings to table this item; direct that staff
and petitioner conduct a neighborhood meeting with residents within
350 feet regarding the potential use, and advise them of this
request. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
RECESS:
MOTION by Councilman Billings to call a recess for the purpose of
meeting with the School Board. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously and the recess began at 9:18 p.m.
Mayor Nee reconvened the meeting at .11:55 p.m. All Council
members, with the exception of'Councilman Schneider, were present.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. RECEIVE THE STATEMENT OF CANVASS FOR.THE SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
Y ELECTION
Mr. Burns, Cita Manager, stated that 3,093 votes were cast in
the September" 10, 1996 primary election, which represented
18.6 percen /of the registered voters. The number of votes
cast were s follows: Craig Gordon, 869; Nancy Jorgenson,
1,381; Ri nard Lewis, 174; Richard Wolfe, 410, over votes, 0;
and underttes, 259.
RECEI THE STATEMENT OF CANVASS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
PRIMAXY ELECTION.
2. REVIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
,RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 21, 1996.
276-78 - 58th Avenue Front Yard Variance Request
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Betty Loewen has requested a variance to allow a reduced setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow
placement of a 2 -car garage at 276-278 58th Avenue N.E.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Code Section 205.22.05.D.1, requires: "A front yard depth of not less than 35 feet". Ms. Loewen has
requested a setback variance to 20 feet to preserve trees and open lawn area on the east side of the home
she intends to purchase. This property was recently the subject of a lot split. As a condition of the lot
split, the property owner was required to remove an existing garage from the newly created building site
at the corner of 3rd Street and 57th Avenue. Ms. Loewen has contemplated utilizing that garage on her
property. Whether it is this garage or a new garage on this site, very few options exist for its location.
An existing attached garage is located 14 feet from the property line. That existing garage is a single stall
unit meant to serve one-half of the side by side duplex on this site. A new double garage would serve
the other half of the duplex.
The building and fire safety staff members reviewed this proposal and stipulated that because the detached
garage would be less than 3 feet from the existing structure (not including overhangs), they would require
that a second and third stall be attached to the existing structure on this site.
HARDSHIP STATEMENT:
A letter has been provided to outline the physical conditions of the site that the petitioner believes
prohibits construction at the Code required 35' setback
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff and the Appeals Commission recommend approval of VAR #96-21 to allow construction of a garage
20' from the north property line. This approval includes one stipulation: 1. Either a new garage shall
be constructed or the existing garage modified in a way that will allow it to be attached to the structure
on this property.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation
6.01
•
Staff Report
VAR #96-21, 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Page 2
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For: A variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow relocation of a
detached garage.
Location
of Property: 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Legal Description
of Property: The west 65 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together with the easterly 6 feet
of the vacated alley lying west of said lots and lying between the Westerly extension of the
North line of said Lot 1, and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 3
Size: 71 feet by 135 feet; 9,585 square feet
Topography: Flax
Existing
Vegetation: Typical suburban; trees, sod, shrubs, etc.
Existing
Zoning/Platting: S-1, Hyde Park; 1886
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities: Located in 58th Avenue
Vehicular
Access: 58th Avenue; 3rd Street
Pedestrian
Access: N/A
Engineering
Issues: N/A
Site Planning
Issues:
6.02
0 •
Staff Report
VAR #96-21, 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Page 3
ADJACENT SITES
WEST: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park
SOUTH: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park
EAST: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park
NORTH: Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Residential
DEVELOPMENT SITE
REQUEST
Betty Loewen has requested a variance to allow a reduced setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow placement of a
2 -car garage at 276-278 58th Avenue N.E.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The property was originally platted in 1886 and zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. In 1959, a 32 ft. by 74 ft. duplex
was constructed on the property. In 1970, the parcel was rezoned from R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to C-2, General
Business. In 1978, the City established a special district entitled "S-1, Hyde Park District". The intent of the S-1
district is to encourage residential investment and redevelopment of commercial properties to residential uses (single
family) in the Hyde Park area.
Building permit activity on the parcel includes the following:
1960 - Construction of a 22 ft. by 23 ft. detached garage
1970 - Construction of a 12 ft. by 20 ft. addition
1977 - Construction of an 8 ft. by 12 ft. deck
1981 - Construction of a 16 ft. by 18 ft. deck
In 1986, the issue of a lot split was first researched by staff at the request of the previous property owners, the
Broders.
ANALYSIS
Code Section 205.22.05.D.1, requires: "A front yard depth of not less than 35 feet". Ms. Loewen has requested a
setback variance to 20 feet to preserve trees and open lawn area on the east side of the home she intends to purchase.
6.03
•
Staff Report
VAR #96-21, 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Page 4
r-]
This property was recently the subject of a lot split. As a condition of the lot split, the property owner was required
to remove an existing garage from the newly created building site at the corner of 3rd Street and 57th Avenue. Ms.
Loewen has contemplated utilizing that garage on her property. Whether it is this garage or a new garage on this
site, very few options exist for its location An existing garage is looted 14 feet from the property line. That existing
garage is a single stall unit meant to serve one-half of the side by side duplex on this site. A new double garage
would serve the other half of the duplex.
The building and fire safety staff members reviewed this proposal and stipulated that because the detached garage
would be less than 3 feet from the existing structure (not including overhangs), they would require that a second and
third stall be attached to the existing structure on this site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of VAR #96-21 to allow construction of a garage 20 feet from the north property line.
This approval includes one stipulation:
1. Either a new garage shall be constructed or the existing garage modified in a way that will allow it
to be attached to the structure on this property.
APPEALS CONMMSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Appeals Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of VAR #96-21 to allow construction of a
garage 20 feet from the north property line. This approval includes one stipulation:
Either a new garage shall be constructed or the existing garage modified in a way that will allow it
to be attached to the structure on this property.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission action.
Comprehensive
Planning Issues: The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning are consistent in this area.
Public Hearing
Comments: To be taken
6.04
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1996 PAGE 4
than to approve a second
request.
single garage. He would vote for denial of this
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded byD Vos, to recommend denial of variance request,
VAR #96-15, by Roger Serdahl to reduce he rear yard setback of an accessory structure
on a double -fronted lot from 35 feet to feet on Lot 3, Block 4, City View Addition, the
same being 409 - 57th Place N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
KUECHLE DECLARED THE
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would cons er this request on September 16.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #96-21
BY BETTY LOEWEN:
Per Section 205.21.05.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the relocation of a 22 foot by 23 -foot
detached garage on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, generally located at
276-278 58th Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the request is to redtAce the garage setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to
allow placement of a two -car garage at 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E.
Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission recently reviewed and approved a lot split at
this location on the comer of 3rd Street and 58th Avenue. There is a side-by-side duplex
that nuns deep on the lot, and there is an open site between the duplex and 3rd Street with
a garage in the southeast comer. The lot split provided a second buildable lot. As a
condition of the lot split, the property owner was required to remove an existing garage
from the newly created building site within one year after the approval date of the lot split.
Ms. Loewen is interested in purchasing the site. She would like to process a variance so
that at the time of closing on the property, all variance issues will be behind her.
Mr. Hickok statedthe garage itself is usable and could be moved to another location. The
code does not allow an accessory structure before a principal structure. This garage was
one of the considerations of the petitioner when looking at the site. Ms. Loewen is
interested in buying the property and constructing a new garage or moving this garage to
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1996 PAGE 5
another location on the site. The house as it exists has a pre-existing nonconforming
condition being 14 feet from the public right-of-way along 58th Avenue. The garage
proposal would be set back a bit at 20 feet to allow two cars to fit in front of the garage.
Mr. Hickok stated staff evaluated the request to determine the best end use from a
planning perspective and to see if there are any issues. One issue is the distance
between the existing single car garage and the two -car garage. Ms. Loewen would prefer
to keep the garage detached in order to keep a walkway. Staff has recommended
approval because there are some hardship conditions on the site including the existence
of mature trees. Staff is concerned about fire safety between the new and old garage. If
the structure is closer than three feet, it should have no penetrations and should have fire -
rated walls. The garage that exists would have to be modified to meet that requirement.
Because of the complexity of the issues there and the fact that there would be a walkway
between the garages, the owner does not lose a lot by having to go around the garage.
One option would be to consolidate the garages and make it architecturally compatible.
Staff spoke with the petitioner about the staff report and the stipulation. Ms. Loewen is
generally in concurrence with the exception of the stipulation. She wants a free-standing
garage with a walkway.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the variance request with the following
stipulation:
1. EithqCa new garage shall be constructed or the existing garage modified in
a way that will allow it to be attached to the structure on this property.
Dr. Vos stated the site has a single stall garage. It has doors and windows. If there is less
than a 3 -foot separation, those doors and windows would have to be changed and comply
with fire ratings. If they move the existing garage,' that garage also has to have
modifications. There is a substantial modification issue to keep the garages at 3 feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that from a financial perspective in order to modify the existing garage,
the petitioner would have to take a portion of the roof or modify from the inside. At that
point, the cost of moving may warrant building a new garage and attaching it to the house.
Dr. Vos stated this is not just a setback problem. If the petitioner would go back 35 feet,
the petitioner would still be given information about the fire safety requirements.
Mr. Hickok stated this is correct
Ms. Loewen asked if there would be a problem if she were to sell the garage and have
someone move it and build a new garage with a walkway between the two making sure
there is three feet between the structures. She really wants to have that walkway.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28, 1996 PAGE 6
Dr. Vos stated the overhangs can come out about 18 inches so the opening overhead
would be minimal. -She would still be requesting that the setback be 22 feet.
Ms. Loewen stated that if she were to place the garage at 35 feet, she would have to take
down four big trees.
Dr. Vos stated she would also end up against the living room.
Ms. Loewen stated she would not be able to see out of one side of the living room. If going
with an attached garage, there is a cost factor. It is a lot more money.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, 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 7:58 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated it seems like staff gave the possibility of getting approval for the variance
and still get a garage on the property by building a garage or putting the garage there and
be within 20 feet of the property line. It seems like a reasonable stipulation rather than the
petitioner's plan. He would vote for approval of the variance with the stipulation.
Mr. Kuechle concurred. In looking at the property, it looks as if the garage would fit as an
attached garage. JMough .he did not have the cost factors, he believed the economic
differences are enough to make the difference. It may be more costly but there are also
costs involved in modifying the existing structures. He did not think the difference would
be significant. He would approve the request with the stipulation.
Ms. Savage agreed.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of variance
request, VAR #96-21, by Betty Loewen to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20
feet to allow the relocation of a 22 foot by 23 foot detached garage on Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 27. Hyde Park, generally located at 276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E., with the following
stipulation:
Either a new garage shall be constructed or the existing garage modified in
a way that will allow it to be attached to the structure on this property.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on September 16.
2. The petitioner shall remove the a parking area within
one year of completion of the g ge addition.
UPON A VOICE VOTES ALL VOTING CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UM3UFXXOUOltV.
Ms. McPherson stated City Council would consider this request
at their April 8th eting.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. #96-01. BY VALLEY
INVESTMENT CO.:
To split Lots 1, 2, and 3,.Block 27, Hyde Park, together
with all that:part.of the -vacated alley lying west of said
lots and lying -.between -,the Westerly extension of the North
line of said Lot It and the Westerly extension of the South
line of said Lot 3.into two parcels as described:
Parcel A. The West 65 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 27, Hyde
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured along
the North line -of said Lot 1, and along the South
line -of said Lot 3, together with all that part of
the vacated alley lying West of said lots, and
lying between the Westerly extension of the North
line of said Lot 1, and the Westerly extension of
the South line�of said Lot 3.
Parcel B. That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying East of -the West 65 feet
thereof as measured along the North line of said
Lot 1 and along the South line of said Lot 3.
This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a lot split by the Valley
Investment Company. The property is located at 276-78 - 58th
Avenue. This property.is.a corner lot located at the
intersection of 58th•Avenue and-3rd,Street in the Hyde Park
neighborhood. There are three issues to be considered:
1. The Planning Commission will be required to acknowledge
deficiencies in Lot B, a reduction in the required lot width
from 80 feet to 65 feet, and a reduction in the required lot
area from 9,000 square feet to 8,839 square feet.
2. The City's action will create a "swapping" of nonconforming
setbacks. Currently, the property does not meet the
required rear yard setback. Should the lot split be
approved, the required front yard setback will not be met by
the existing dwelling.
6.13
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 5
3. The detached two -car garage located on the parcel will be
located on a newly approved vacant lot should the request be
approved. The City Code does not allow accessory structures
to be located on a lot prior to the principal structure.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are proposing to take the
parcel comprised of three lots and a vacated alley and split it
into two parcels. Parcel A has an existing duplex constructed in
1959 under R-2, Two -Family Dwelling District, regulations. This
parcel measures 77 feet x 135 feet and meets the minimum lot area
required in the R-2 district of 10,000 square feet. The lot area
is actually 10,400. The lot split -would create Parcel B which is
adjacent to 3rd Street. and -.58th.Avenue. This lot measures 65
feet x 134 feet.andhas.. a,. lot, area of 8,839 square feet. -Lot B
is deficient in two requirements. The first is the lot width
which is only 65 feet. The minimum requirement for a corner lot
is 80 feet. The second is lot area which is less than the 9,000
square foot minimum. If,the Commission chooses to approve the.
lot split, the members need to acknowledge these deficiencies.
Ms. McPherson stated -the second issue is the nonconforming
setbacks. In 1986, the Planning staff was requested to analyze a
similar lot split request. At that time, it was determined that
3rd Street, because it is the shorter frontage, would be the
front yard making : the west portion -of. the ...lot the rear. yard.. The
duplex is currently 13.5 feet at its closest point from the rear
lot line. The required rear yard -setback is 35.61 feet.- The lot
as it is currently configured without the split is nonconforming
in its rear yard setback. If the lot -split -is approved, ---the- -
front yard would then be towards 58th Avenue. The duplex is also
set too close to 58th Avenue,_for the front yard requirement of 35
feet. The duplex is_14 feet from what would then be the front
property line. The City's action would.create a "swapping" of a
nonconforming rear yard setback for a nonconforming front yard
setback.
Ms. McPherson stated. -the third .issue is the detached garage on
what would be Parcel B. If the lot split is approved, the
accessory structure would be located on the parcel prior to
construction of a principle building. Section 205.04.05.A of the
Fridley City Code explicitly states, "No accessory building or
structure shall be permitted on any lot prior to the time of the
issuance of the building permit for the construction of a
principal building." Staff is recommending the petitioner remove
this garage.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has analyzed the petitioners' options.
The petitioners could potentially move the detached garage onto
Parcel A; however, - that- -does increase--, the -lot coverage from - the
maximum of 25% to 28% which would then require a variance.
6.14
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 6
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request
with the Planning Commission acknowledging the deficiencies and
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner acknowledges the City's action creates a
nonconforming front yard setback.
2. The petitioner shall remove the garage located on Lot B.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow
buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area.
Ms. Modig stated how --is this impacted by the fact that the
Planning Commission -is -acknowledging the deficiencies regarding
the setbacks and the petitioner is acknowledging that the City's
actions create a nonconforming setback?
Ms. McPherson stated she would respond to the first part
regarding the Planning Commission acknowledging the deficiencies.
The subdivision ordinance allows the Planning Commission and the
City Council to approve lot splits or plats with lots that do not
meet the minimum requirements. The Commission is in effect
granting a variance to.the lot area and lot width requirements.
Those are .the only two areas where the Planning Commission is
allowed to grant a variance.
Ms. McPhersonstated' the second part deals with the front yard
setback. While the petitioners acknowledge that the lot line
along 58th Avenue now becomes the front yard and creates a
nonconformity, it does not grant the petitioners a variance to
the front yard setback. If the petitioners chose to expand the
part of the dwelling in the area of.the garage, they would need
to..request a variance.
Mr. Saba asked what was planned to go on the newly created lot.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners have been told that the only
type of building permitted.in that district would be a single
family dwelling.
Ms. Modig asked if a time limit had been set for the removal of
the garage.
Ms. McPherson stated a time limit had not been set. This should
be done.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the existing attached garage had two parking
stalls.
Ms. McPherson stated the existing garage is a 1.5 car garage
being 21 feet wide.
6.15
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 7
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner would have to have hard
surface that would accommodate 2.5 cars.
Ms. McPherson stated existing duplexes constructed prior to the
current code are permitted to provide three parking spaces.
Potentially, if the tenants have small cars, they may be able to
get two in the garage and the owner would have to provide an
additional hard surface stall adjacent to the garage.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the total lot coverage included hard
surface.
Ms. McPherson stated no. This pertains only to the buildings.
Mr. Oquist asked, if1the'existing garage on the newly created lot
could become part. of the new structure, would it be necessary to
remove it.
Ms. McPherson stated no,-but.the Planning Commission would have
to amend the second stipulation to indicate., if a dwelling were
to be constructed within .12 months. or 18 months, then the garage
could remain as part of that structure.
Mr. Newman asked if the lot width of Parcel A was nonconforming.
Ms. McPherson stated Parcel A is an interior lot and the minimum
is 75 feet. This lot is 8o feet which is conforming.
Mr. Newman asked, from a planning standpoint, why should the
Planning Commission recommend approval.
Ms. McPherson stated that approval would provide an additional
single family lot and.provide.an opportunity to invest in the
Hyde Park neighborhood. The City and the*HRA are encouraging
investment in this part of the City. The request is not greatly
different from what has been previously approved in other parts
of the community.— The. lot,area.As.not substantially below the
minimum requirement.
Mr. Saba stated he had the same concerns that we are perpetuating
nonconformance. Is this really 4n investment in the Hyde Park
neighborhood or is this perpetuating nonconformance in that
neighborhood? Without seeing a plan or without knowing what will
be developed there, he is skeptical.
Ms. Hegna stated someone had talked about putting the existing
garage next to the existing duplex. Where would the driveway be?
Ms. McPherson stated this is • a= question to -direct to the .
petitioners. There is an option to go through the variance
process to construct an addition to the existing garage.
6.16
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCS 20, 1996 PAGE 8
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners could do this and meet the
setback requirements. .
Ms. McPherson stated they could do that in the rear yard but not
in the front.
Mr. Newman asked, if the petitioners merely removed the detached
garage, is there a garage by the duplex now.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Mr. Brody, Valley Investment Company, stated they would like to
leave the garage.on the -new lot;and-construct a single family
dwelling. He hoped to have that -completed in the -next 16 months.
Mr. Newman asked when the petitioners anticipated breaking
ground.
Mr. Brody stated they hoped to do so this summer.
Mr. Rondrick asked if the petitioners planned to build a new
dwelling on the lot and leave the garage there.
Mr. Brody stated yes. It seems a shame to tear down the garage
when it is already there servingla-good purpose.
Mr. Newman asked, without -seeing plans, would that conform with
setback requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated, if the garage remained detached, it would
meet the requirements. If the garage is attached, staff would
need to further analyze the••request.
Mr. Saba expressed concern. -about the size of the garage. Isn't
that an issue with new construction?
Ms. McPherson stated the existing -garage is 22 feet x 23 feet.
It is small.but it would meet the two -car garage requirement.
Mr. Oquist asked, if a house were constructed, which street would
be the address.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner can choose whether to address
the property off 3rd Street or 58th Avenue.
Mr. Saba asked if staff had received any calls from the
neighbors.
Ms. McPherson stated staff had -not -received --any calls.
Mr. Brody stated their plan i,. ZQ _ aftVat a single family home.
6.17
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 9
They would consider selling the lot if they had an offer from a
contractor. Either way, there would be new construction in that
area.
Mr. Newman suggested stating as a condition that the time frame
be 12 months for a building permit to be issued with a
certificate of occupancy being issued within 18 months and, if
this is not done, the petitioner then must take down the garage.
Mr. Oquist stated he can understand the concern about
nonconforming use but, on the other hand, it is a large empty
area. The points staff has made are valid. He has no problem
with the stipulations.
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners had seen the recommendations
that staff had recommended and if they was comfortable with
those.
Mr. Brody stated they ha& seen them and had no problems.
No further comments from the public were received.
NOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend
approval -of Lot Split Request, L.S. #96-01, by Valley Investment
Company, to split Lots .1, 2, -and 3, Block 27,---Hyde,Park, together
with all that part of the vacated alley' lying went of said lots
and lying between the Westerly extension of the North line of
said Lot 1, and the Westerly extension of the South line of said
Lot 3 into two parcels as described:
Parcel A. The West 65 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 27, Hyde
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured along
the North line of said Lot 1, and along the South
line of said Lot 3, together with all that part of
the vacated'alley lying West of said lots, and
lying between the Westerly extension of the North
line of said Lot l, -and the Westerly extension of
the South line of said Lot 3.
Parcel B. That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 65 feet
thereof as measured along the North line of said
Lot 1 and along the South line of said Lot 3.
This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner acknowledges the City's action creates a
nonconforming -front yard -setback. --
6.18
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAG$ 10
2. If the petitioner fails to obtain a building permit for a
single family residence within 12 months of the approval of
the Lot Split and fails to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy
for said structure within 18 months of the approval of the
Lot Split, then the garage located on Parcel B shall be
removed.
3. The petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow
buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UMMEIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this -request
on April 8th.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST SAV #96-01, IMPERIAL
HOMES, INC.:
To vacate that part of.the drainage and utili easement as
dedicated on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace A ition,
described as follows: Beginning at a poi on the north
line of said Lot 7 distant 65.10 feet e t from the
northwest corner of,said.Lot 7; thenc on an assumed bearing
of,South 28 degrees -OO minutes 00 s onds East along the
west line of said .drainage- and ut ity: easement 64..13 feet;
thence South 38 degrees 'OO minu s East 32.00 feet; thence
North 24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds West.92.63 feet to a
point on said north -line dis nt 12 feet east of said point*
of beginning; thence South 7 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds
West 12.00 feet to.the p nt of beginning. Except the north
5 feet thereof, genera y located at 1435 Royal.Oak Court
N.E.
Ms. McP/currently
stated request is for a recently subdivided lot
in the -Grace a ition located near Arthur Street,
southeathe.sc 1 and located adjacent to a wetland next to
Arthur . Th petitioner.is requesting that a portion of a
drainagti ty easement -located on the property be vacated.
The petr 's requesting the vacation in order to construct a
single welling with an attached garage. The northeast
corner garage encroaches into the easement area. The
petitiocurrently constructing a house and at this point is
avoidinarea of.the garage to avoid encroachment into the
easemen.
Ms. M herson stated the purpose of the drainage and utility
eas ent is to provide additional buffer space for the wetland
ar beyond the line delineated by the wetland specialist. The
p itioners have des igned a.-house,for•, their- -client.
nfortunately, the design of the house does not fit within the
buildable area when taking into account the easement and setback
6.19
VAR #96-21 . •
276-278 - 58TH AVENUE N.E. MAILING LIST
BETTY LOEWEN
1600 2ND AVENUE SOUTH
ANOKA MN 55303
BURGER KING
255 57TH AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
DOROTHY MAYER OR RESIDENT
5807 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
GERALD & LOUISE ALMLIE
OR RESIDENT
5826 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
MILDRED BARKER OR RESIDENT
5800 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
KEITH RAVELING OR RESIDENT
5813 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
RESIDENT
5821 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
ROBERT & DORIS JOHNSON OR
RESIDENT
5810 212 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
RESIDENT
276 58TH AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
HARDEES RESTAURENT
289 57TH AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
DEL & PEGGY PRICE OR RESIDENT
5821 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
LUCILLE BODIN OR RESIDENT
5824 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
HERBERT & JEANETTE MOORE
OR RESIDENT
5801 2 1/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
VIOLA PFIEFFER OR RESIDENT
5817 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CHARLES & LUELLA LINDBERG
OR RESIDENT
5825 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
ALBIN & EBBA JOHNSON
2977 243RD STREET
CUSHING WI 54006
MAILED 8/16/96
MEYER & JOANNE BRODER
OR RESIDENT
278 58TH AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
JOHN ORLANDO OR RESIDENT
5805 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
ORLIN & MARLENE PETERSON
OR RESIDENT
5831 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
EMILY DYKHOFF OR RESIDENT
5810 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
LYLE & DENISE JANZ OR RESIDENT
5806 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
ANGELA WAX
612 22ND AVENUE NE
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55418
RESIDENT
5820 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
RESIDENT
5800 212 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
HYO SHIK & IN JA CHONG RESIDENT KATHLEEN HARVET OR RESIDENT
3401 78TH AVENUE N 251 57TH PLACE NE 271 57TH PLACE NE
BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
MAILING LIST - PAGE 2�ARRY KUECHLE OITY MANAGER
VAR #96-21 202 MERCURY DRIVE NE
276-278 - 58TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CITY COUNCIL
WILLIAM & ORA TALLEY
ROBERT BIGELOW
IRVING HERMAN/I S EFRON
OR RESIDENT
PIZZA HUTS OF NW INC
5735 QUINCY STREET NE
281 57TH PLACE NE
9111 E DOUGLAS PO BOX 428
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
WICHITA KS 67201
RESIDENT
NORTHWIND FOODS INC
PAUL SLESAR
262 57TH PLACE NE
1317 BURNING WOOD WAY
44 LOCKE LAKE ROAD
FRIDLEY MN 55432
MADISON WI 53704
FRIDLEY MN 55432
RESIDENT S & A DEVELOPMENT CO RESIDENT
5780 21/2 STREET NE 3400 EAST 42ND STREET 5770 21/2 STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 MINNEAPOLIS 55406 FRIDLEY MN 55432
DAVID & ROBIN HERYLA RESIDENT DAN JENSEN/D WOLLENBERG
1100 POLK STREET NE 5761 2ND STREET NE 5027 5TH STREET NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421 FRIDLEY MN 55432 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421
RESIDENT CHARLES FISCHER OR RESIDENT RAYMOND & DOROTHY HEGNA
232 58TH AVENUE NE 248 58TH AVENUE NE OR RESIDENT
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 5770 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
VIOLET ROCEK RESIDENT EDWARD & ANNE ANDRAJACK
597 10TH AVENUE SW 5791 21/2 STREET NE OR RESIDENT
NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112 FRIDLEY MN 55432 5832 3RD STREET NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
PAUL & DIANE BEALL OR RESIDENT ERNEST & KATHLEEN BERGSTROM VERN BRANTNER/ALFRED BATES
261 57TH PLACE NE OR RESIDENT 1028 4212 AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 5760 3RD STREET NE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421
FRIDLEY MN 55432
RESIDENT DAVID & LAURNEL LANDRUS BRET & TONI ANDERSON
5783 212 STREET NE OR RESIDENT OR RESIDENT
FRIDLEY MN 55432 5775 212 STREET NE 241 57TH PLACE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
RICHARD & SONIA PETERSON JERRY FINKELSTEIN RESIDENT
OR RESIDENT 4319 CEDARWOOD ROAD 5801 2ND STREET NE
247 57TH PLACE NE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a
Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on
Wednesday, August 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of:
Consideration of variance request, VAR #96-21, by the Betty Loewen:
Per Section 205.21.05.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to allow the relocation of a 22 ft. by 23 ft.
detached garage on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, generally located at
276-278 - 58th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above
stated time and place.
LARRY KUECHLE
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community
Development Department, 572-3593.
Hearing-impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons
with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500
no later than August 21, 1996.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
' F� � COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW
File Number 46 File Date 8/2/96 Meeting Date 8/28/96
----------------------------------
Description: VAR 496-21 - 276-278 58th Avenue N.E., Betty Loewe
Front yard setback
-----------------
* *
Return to the Community Development Department
Barbara Dacy
Community Development Director
John Flora
Public Works Director
Ed Hervin
City Assessor
Scott Hickok
Planning Coordinator
Ron Julkowski
Chief Building Official
Dick Larson
Fire Marshall
Michele McPherson
Planning Assistant
Dave Sallman
Police Chief
Jon Wlczek
Asst. Public Works Director
0
CITY OF FRIDLEY p
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM
PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached
Address:
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Legal description: P Y
Lot
Current zoning:
Tract/Addition
Reason for variance and hardship:
Section of City Code:
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No _k:!f_ If yes, which city?
If yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
FEE OWNER INFORMA ION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME
ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONE
SIGNATURE - DATE
NAME
I�
SIGNATURE
Fee: $100.00'60. for residential properties
Permit VAR #— Z) R ei t # l
Application received by:
Scheduled Appeals Commission da ST 1-T7 6
Scheduled City Council date: p �, / ��
APPLICATION
DATE
weeks
City of Fridley Community Development Variance Process
APPEALS
COMMISSION
DATE
CITY COUNCIL
DECISION
CITY RECORDS
ACTION AT
ANOKA COUNTY
,7
•
Valley West Realty Inc 5445085
64 UNIVER$X><Y A► Ay NXL�-'�
F R.UD3tXY, MN 55432441�
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY MVELOPMEN't DEPARTMENT
.N
VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM
P T r --. ,-
- site plan required for submittal; seo attached
Property Identification Number
Legal description:
Lot
Current xonizyg: �;
ltes3011 for variance and hardship:
Tract/Addition
Sectianl of City Code: o
Have you oiler-ated a business in s city which required a business license?
Yes - No _ , / _ If yes, which city?
If yes, what type of business
Was that license re ol<ed_ ` .�.^_
ever denied or v ? Yes
FEE ow (as
it appears on the property title)
(Contract Pur ase .: F wners roust s'gn this form prior to processing)
-NAME
ADDRFSS
SIGNATURE _DAYx'tME PHONE
NAME
SJtCNATF7ltE / --� DAYTIME PHONE
"�... .DA rE
�Mrz .M
.....'...�N--
Fee: $100.00 $60.00 for residential properties �U-
Pet-alit VAR # Receipt #
Application reCcived by:
Scheduled A _
pP�1s Commission date: _
Scheduled City Council date:— --"
.,\Yr -.i'. -.T T,r..----V -. lei.....---------------
P. 01
--------------------------------_
FF.'i=rt1 :I_tTIC HtJi=�l<:q �-------------------------------
�-------------------e F.03r04 ---
61c 4'21 16.02 1996,07-23 14:34 #_79•-
rrvii -vi ti.. CLLIVI-. Dlc N�:y 1Ob4Y� 19961.07-23 14: --X9 4767 P-04/09
C. E. OULTER AS OCIA'r 5, INC.
IOU COULTar. P61E vAr
EWES IONAL REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
lzscasrtir �t x . WSC & ]OVA Ymsm im m OA i"Awous
P.O. Box 8900 IdINNEAPAUS, MINNESOTA 55408-0900
PHONE (6121 824-0370 TAX (6Q) 953-3074
30 i a so — 60 90 Feet
II, 58TH AVENUE N.E.
142.44
�I�oD SQ�'14'S6"E
I ,J
row 1
t�S N C 1 G
r
n.a ca_
� � a
OF.
l*� cQ "4 { It' '� Q
C-' DECEL ,4
65.44
W
W
1
w 8' CHAIN L1NiC W GAR. a'
��' - }N M
�7 q
• t i ; • It.BC<; t �; 12,60
-1-77.00--- - 85.54 .r• 18.Afl
+
N8142.54!
89 25;, jy--10.14
28 S NOTES: DENOTES PROPBETY CORKER.
s` • Dy>`IDTEs rrml LINE -
17.0 1—STORY
LeGA7. DES 2lP'i10N: ; Ni3bD F1tNdE g PARCE). CONTAINS 19,245 ggUAVE •
NO, 5770 FEET. =
Latif 1. 2 & ,, Black 27, I(y'de Park, A,tvalkn ALL $LARITIC,S SHOWN' �iRE ; �SSUIdEU
Couritp, wnnesotm, together with aU that port of 4)
the vacated alley Dying Vpvt of ami lvtn, and lying DATUM. „� [
betR2011 IAA WdAtOrlY e=tenwtoe of a MoAb lips t
or oei3 Lot i, and the lrcaterl; a=4e�leioo tiI the NOTE: THIS SURVEY CPRTiFICATE 19 Nab' YALID W171101JT
South line of ael� Lot 3'. AN ORlg1NAL SIGNATURE AND A RAISS0 : SEst1.
CoprnlrU7 Q IBpa, C.E. COULI-ER k ASsOCUTES, CNC.
I HEREBY C99M SHAT TJOS SURVEY, PLir'OR PEPORT VAS FARED DY WENT: VAMSY WaT WI Y INC.
ME OR UNDER 11Y O REL MERMON ANA 4T i dM A DULY REG151'P.RED
o 8R ia MIs of n`q)is 4478 Of frltt[n Strla.
JOB NO. 11.554 SCALE 1'
DATE- r 1/96 REC. NO 13 92 B�.Jpc. �s9/ -52 sm I or 2
. � � .� � � �� � � A/
��� ���
-�� �� �
��\�
�
��` :\� �� �
rw y
�. ? � z
d.«
»*
-.«a§
^ v:> -a,«�
.. \ d� ?�
\�
�//\� � \� � �
W
Z
vI
59TH
/
c 2• a
/mss
q
PJa 5
29
vt
27
AEE t
27
g
Oak
/
/7
3
N.E.
5
� _ -
24
7
9
F (0)Z6
z
_4
�i
` C
1
/3
/a
1 /3 '
/� :�:.;
LJ
Z
10
vI
- AVENUE
N
N
'•��
/mss
2,9
e8W.
2B �l
vt
27
AEE t
17�
/
/7
3
N.E.
5
� _ -
�
'0)G7
`
F (0)Z6
ul
M
`Z9
�t
e8W.
z 7
vt
2.5
AEE t
/
/7
3
N.E.
5
7
'0)G7
`
F (0)Z6
L_
5 1.
,RC 2 ¢ 1 kz
E 9� r?
...)o/
e8W.
-�yyy� ,
vt
AEE t
/
2
3
f
5
7
/
�+ -
y�os)
% 7
5T
...)o/
e8W.
r .99
1-f
vt
/
2
3
f
5
7
y�os)
J
LLJ
1
•
/ .7d
-
i
B�
p
7.
�
ii4�&
''3 ,,
60 I (d9)
N
---
',
23
a
A •
h lit;/9
-
o
Z
/7
6 o
/ �a
0 o pp o
N'0 0 0 /� %•
/3514
�
17
3
6
7
B
9
/0//
Au
6
'1
1
Js
59
-
-
_
/Ff�9� d
3
4
oommo_
7 T
..
V'
..
..
0
•
�
40
,po
�-
-
25
i j 0.
Z
7
13
14
o C o
Z/
/JQSB
q
�
'//B•7 `�b
o
h /
r
7
9 +�
CO
AVE.
;z
N. E
-C-O._
NO.
Inn
HveyOev .'
3'0l
...)o/
.00
/
2
3
f
5
7
y�os)
J
LLJ
1
•
/ .7d
-
r
p
7.
N
---
',
23
a
A •
h lit;/9
o
Z
/7
/ �a
0 o pp o
N'0 0 0 /� %•
/3514
�
Au
6
'1
1
Js
59
-
/Ff�9� d
3
4
oommo_
2
1 0'�ry`/3 i
0
:few
o C o
Z/
/JQSB
q
�
'//B•7 `�b
o
h /
r
7
9 +�
CO
AVE.
;z
N. E
PLACE
SSS_[_ T3/�f¢�29v
14PIX I
i,_,
/
2
3
f
5
7
/Idit
y�os)
J
PLACE
SSS_[_ T3/�f¢�29v
14PIX I
i,_,
e
I 1
I,a
l3
'D'r
,vet, ua9)
/Idit
y�os)
J
e
I 1
III
11T,
lo
ld,
Ills
mmms
comms
mmms
OCR, li.� yam' ,r, •M
!- r...� ,� ;,psi s • \�
RM
'� ���., icy � ��` a��•k_� "" .'.
L
7
t �a7 � � c��,�'O � 4 'r:- .�r,3'Y `4` X�� ;;�•��� > ,t 7" ��.', � r� i. l�*ly�r' r"a-:. �1r '��` r:.k.".
$ p yam_ S ..x ♦{�' " 1'�� � � . ��J r y :q # :( t�� � _
�. ^ ,4 -R• F. � .r 14.E •,•r''• �. �r t� �' ?x i4"y. k .: y;
•moi. I0 ...,...•...,�r.w �_ -