Loading...
VAR 88-10COMW SION APPLICATIOWwaEVIEW s UDepartment Number File Date Meeting Date CITY O OF com "ty Development 20 5-3-88 5-24-88 FW DLEY File Address/Description VAR #88-10 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST 1457-- 64th Ave. N.E. s de yard setback RETURN TO PLANNING KATHY COMMENTS JOHN V4. MDARREL LYDE MARK EON 5-- IMI M ltc1G 4.,(A v►ot a.6urne.- ill tet br. ksedt. �� CITY OF FRIDLEY- 6431 UNIVERSITY AY *E- FRIDLEY, a MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 VA1ilAN& REQUEST FORM VARIANCE # & 5 7 1 VARIANCE FEE RECEIPT # J �? �j SCHEDULED APPEALS MEETING DATE �r0V d d" PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS hM /h4kl il hot.. 1� e LEGAL DESCRIPTION:, WT,CT 75 or. Z►si 104 0+` n LOT '10 BLOCK �i TRACT/ADDITION S1?21 jj6 l.iA LL VY 000 i PRESENT ZONING �i � -1 VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Attach a plat or survey of the property showing building, variance(s), where applicable. toe SrAo_n o '516m STmaes i L�rt i w► a2au�ol Section of the Code: List specific hardship(s) which require the variance(s): f-,na v,.. FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAME (please print) to A& D—V\.a PHONE � "/ f ` �51 7 ADDRESS H SIGNATURE DATE #f#i� #i�;#��'��' / #� I + # ' $# #$s r+ � $ # # $# 'e###§ #$ j,1444### PETITIMER INFORMATION NAME (please print ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE :PPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: 5 • VARIANCES A. Appeals Conmission. 11be City Council created an Appeals Ccnzdssion to serve as the ` board of appeals and adjustment, and to exercise all the authority and perform all functions of said board pursuant to Hinnesota Statute Sections 462.351 to 462.364 and operate according to the Fridley City Code. B. Petition By Owner. (1) Appeals from Decisions on Code Enforcement: At any time within thirty (30) days, any property owner who feels aggrieved by an alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative off icer in the enforcement of this Chapter which affects the owner's .property, may appeal to the Appeals Commission by filing a written appeal with the City. The appeal shall fully state the order appealed from, the facts of the matter and the mailing address of the owner. (2) Request for Variances from Zoning Chapter Provisions: A property owner may appeal the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships preventing the strict application of the regulations of this Chapter. An application for a variance shall be filed with the City and shall practiscalte the difficultieess claimed asconditions a basisdforthe apvariand ance P C. Recommendations By Appeals Commission. Within thirty (30) days after filing an appeal from an administrative order or determination, or request for variance from City Code provisions the Appeals Commission shall hold a public hearing thereon and shall hear such persons as want to be heard. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing to the person or persons who file the appeals, and to all adjacent property owners within a 200 foot distance of the requested variance location. Within a reasonable time, after the hearing, the Appeals Commission shall make its recommendations or approvals subject to conditions of the Fridley City Code and forward a copy of such recommendation or approval to the City Council through the Planning ComLission. D. Variances In R-1 Zoning. (1) In areas zoned 1-1 (One Family Dwelling District), the Appeals Commission has the authority to grant final approval of variances when all of the following conditions are met: (a) There is unanimous agreement of the Appeals Convdssion. (b) The staff concurs with the recommendations of the Appeals Commission. (c) The general public attending the meeting or responding to the notice of public hearing have no objection. (d) The petitioner is in agreement with the reoonv endation. (2) 1%1= the above conditions are not met, the variance request must be reviewed by the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. E. Record Of Action Taken. The Appeals Commission shall provide for a written record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meeting, its findings and the recommendation or approval of each matter heard by it. The finding of fact shall contain the following: (1) The public policy which is served by requirement. (2) The practical difficulties or unique circumstance of the property that cause undue hardship in the strict application of the requirement. (3) In recommending or approving a variance, the Cammission and/or Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. F. Action By 7he City Council. The Council shall at its next regular meeting, after receiving the reoommendation of the Appeals Commission, with a policy review by the Planning Cormission, decide on the action to be taken. G. Lapse Of Variance By Non-use. If work as permitted by a 'variance is not commenced within one year and completed within two years after granting of a variance, then the variance shall became null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by.the City Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City at least twenty (20) days before the expiration of the original variance. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the variance. Such petition shall be presented to the appropriate body for review and/or decision. LIST OF SPECIFIC HARDSHIPS WHICH REQUIRE THE VARIANCE: 1. The present setback from the east lot line does not allow me the full utilization of the 75' frontage that I own. 2. Adding an additional detached garage, regardless of its size, does not lend itself to an efficient plot plan, in that valuable back yard space would be consumed. 3. Access to an additional detached garage would not be acceptable due to the unimproved condition of the side street easement. 3. I presently own three vehicles plus snomobiles and a trailer, all of which are worthy of protection from the elements and possible theft. Adding the space as requested would allow me to protect my personal property. 4. Presently I am parking one vehicle in the driveway. This results in having to constantly shuffle vehicles depending on which vehicle is driven on a given day. 5. Parking in the street is congested resulting in an inconvenience to my neighbors and increases the possibility of damage to those vehicles. 6. An addition, as proposed, would result in an esthetically pleasing structure with logical and convenient access. Making the addition attached rather than detached should increase the value of my property and I assume would therefore reflect favorably to the property values of my neighbors. 0 • Appeals 5/13/88 MAILING LIST VAR #88-10 Joe Nelson 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, m City Cb mcil members Mayor Nee City Manager Chairperson of Appeals Oommission Richard S. Carlson 7691 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MLV 55432 Joseph Copley 6421 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Bob M. Calderom 6401 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 John D. Rau 1341 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MV 55432 Stanley C. Dahlberg 1384 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, My 55432 Mark A. Schwartz 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, m 55432 LaVonne Kowski 6391 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Lelby T. Tovsen 1356 - 64th Avenue N.E. - Fridley, MV 55432 Brian M. Peterson 1340 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MLV 55432 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS ODMMISSICN 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, May 24, 1988, for the purpose of: Consideration of a variance request, VAR #88-10, by Joseph Nelson, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03.D, (2) , (c) , (1) , of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th 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. •. r .,D1. • F.AUM•• i i • Note: The 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. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. • 0 Item #31 May 24, 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. VAR #88-10 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.03.D,(2),(c),(1), requires that the side yard setback on a street side of a comer lot shall not be 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. 1. The present setback from the east lot line does not allow me the full utilization of the 75 ft. frontage that I own. 2. Adding an additional detached garage, regardless of its size, does not lend itself to an efficient plot plan, in that valuable back yard space would be consumed. 3. Access to an additional detached garage would not be acceptable due to the unimproved condition of the side street easement. 4. I presently own three vehicles plus snowmobiles and a trailer, all of which are worthy of protection from the elements and possible theft. Adding the space as requested would allow me to protect my personal property. 5. Presently I am parking one vehicle in the driveay. This results in having to constantly shuffle vehicles depending on which vehicle is driven on a given day. 6. Parking in the street is congested resulting in an inconvenience to my neighbors and increases the possibility of damage to those vehicles. 7. An addition, as proposed, would result in an aesthetically pleasing structure with logical and convenient access. Making the addition attached rather than detached should increase the value of my property and I assume would therefore reflect favorably to the property values of my neighbors. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The petitioner's lot is a corner lot of which the side streeet is unimproved. The right-of-way for this proposed street is 50 feet wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated from this lot during a former lot split. The City has no immediate plans to improve the street and may never improve it depending upon what future development would take place in this super block. If, however, the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to suggest. B . • APPEALS CXSSICRJ MEETING, MY 24, 1988 PAGE 9 Mr. Galosh stated tlza all indications were that they will able to care to an agreement with S Mall for parking where the parking 'ance will not be needed. Dr. Vos stated they have consider both variances beta a there was no agre e- ment at this time. M'7TICN by Dr. Vos, seconded V M. Savage, to close thV publi c hearing UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING WE, CSAIRPERSON BATA DECLARED THE PiIBLIC HEARING CLOSID AT 8:50 P.M. \ Dr. Vos stated he thought would imprEfg e present ingr19 TC e ss and egress. He stated he has banked at this since 197he felt these improvetrnnts would hlep both the parking and the drive-in traffic. Ms. Savage stated she agreed. g Y was going to improve the appear- ance of the general mall area would be weThere certainly needed to be same more green area as so much of the mall lacktop. She stated the plan seemed well thought-out arra well planne as worked with TCF and Staff was recarntending the variance with the stip utlined in the staff report. Mr. Kuechle stated he would also agree. H was still -concerned about the traffic exiting onto 52nd and then turning south Nigh way 65, but he did not have a solution for that problem He would reapproval of the variance with the stipulations. Mr, Barna agreed. He stated a lot of planning gone into this, and staff has been actively involved in the planning He be in favor of the variance. M7!'ICN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by .Savage, to to City Council approval of variance request, rD( # 09, by T.C.F. &Saving, F.A., pursuant to Chapter 205.15.05. 4) , (c) , of the Fridl City Code to reduce the driveway curb opening to the near portion of a ri rof�aay frau 75 feet to 42 feet; and pursuant to Chapter 05.15.OS.C,(1), of th Fridley City Code to reduce the number of parking spa from 39 spaces to 32 spaces, to allow driveway ingress/egress relocation and expansion of drive -up 2 lanes to 4 lanes, located on the West Ztao H Seventy-five (275) feet o Lot 5, EXC3�'I' the North Thirty-six and Sixty -s Hundredths (36.67) feet th f, Auditor's Sub - Division No. 153, Anoka Chun ,Minnesota, subject to the ri is of the public highway on the West Fifty (5 feet and the South Twenty --five (25) feet of said pre mises, and together with easement for walkway and road es over the is East Fifty (50) feet of th West Three Hundred Twenty-five (325 feet of Lot 5 EXCEPT the North Thirty -s' and Sixty-seven Hundredths (36.67) t thereof, the saran being 5205 Central A ue N.E.. with the followina stipulate ns: for the drive- ugh operation. 2. T.C.F. will tall. necessary curbing, landscaping, and spr' g as indicated n the approved plan. 3. T.C.F. will ork with Skywood to acquire and improve the par g area for Bank loyeess. 4. T.C.F. wi provide additional landscaping just west of the era ting easterly rder along with automatic sprinkling. APPEALS C OYMSSION I -MING 24. '1988 5. T.C.F. will develop program for the propos 6. T.C.F. will work with ster and utility equi. 7. T.C.F. will supply a cover the agreed-upon si '8. All of the outlined imp prior to the operation UPCN A VOICE VOTE, ALL UNANDMLY. PAGE 10 seek 1 for a directional signage circula 'on system. to ve the screening for the dung pment ed an the north end of the site. perfo bond in the amount of $10,000 to to iap ts. is 'll be installed and functional f the e d drive-through area. RM •J}0 1 I • • M ' • 71• 3. C ONSIMRATIC N OF A VARIANCE RWIEST, VAR #88-10, 'BY JOE NELSON: Pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03.D, (2) , (c) , 1 , of the Fridley C it' y Code to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage located on lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. MMICkd by M. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to aper the public hearing. UKK A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, OPEN AT 9.00 P.M. BAJA LECCARED THE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report: 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. VAR #88-10 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RD 304ENT: Section 205.07.03.D,(2),(c),(1), requires that the side yard setback on a street side of a corner lot shall not be 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. STATED HARDWIP: 1. The present setback from the east lot line does not allow me the full utilization of the 75 ft. frontage that I own. 2. Adding an additional detached garage, regardless of its size, does not lend itself to an efficient plot plan, in that valuable back yard space would be consumed. 3. Access to an additional detached garage would not be acceptable due to the unimproved condition of the side street easement. 4. I presently own three vehicles plus snowmobiles and a trailer, all of which are worthy of protection from the elements and possible theft. Adding the space as requested would allow me to protect my personal property. • • 12v APPEAL a"USSICn1 NE'E'I'ING, MY 24, '1988 PAGE 11 S. Presently I am parking one vehicle in the driveay. This results in having to constantly shuffle vehicles depending on which vehicle is driven an a given day. 6. Parking in the street is congested resulting in an inconvenience to my neighbors and increases the possibility of damage to those vehicles. 7. An addition, as proposed, would result in an aesthetically pleasing structure with logical and convenient access. Making the addition attached rather than detached should increase the value of my property and I assume would therefore reflect favorably to the property values of my neighbors. C. AEKINI19TRRTM SEW REVIEW: The petitioner's lot is a corner lot of which the side streeet is unimproved. The right-of-way for this proposed street is 50 feet wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated from this lot during a former lot split. The City has no immediate plans to improve the street and may never Improve it depending upon what future development would take place in this super block. If, however, the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to suggest. Mr. Clark stated this is rather a large block, encompassed by 64th Avenue cn the east, Mississippi Street an the north, and Central Avenue on the west. He stated it was logical to dedicate street riot -of -way and put a street down the middle frac Arthur to Central if other property owners should split their lots. However, no street has been designed or is being planned at this time. The City does not even know if the street will ever be put in. It would depend upon whether the property owners in the neighborhood want to divide up their properties. A typical lot in this block is 125 ft. by 300+ ft., nearly three times the size of a normal residential lot. W. Clark stated the petitioner would like to add 12 feet onto the east side of his existing garage and extend the garage back double deep. The additional garage space would be 582 sq. ft. for a total garage area of 1,000 sq. ft. In order to build this additional garage space, the petitioner is requesting a side yard variance from 17.5 feet from the street riot of-aay to S.5 feet. He showed the. Cammissicners a picture taken frau the street which showed the easterly end of the garage and the uninproved street. W. Clark stated that if the street was ever put in or if the street was there already, W. Nelson might have elected to put a detached garage in the rear yard with a separate driveway entrance onto the new street. However, that was not an option today, because there are no, plans for a street. Dr. Vas asked haw far the garage would be from the rear lot line W. Nelson stated it would be 45+ feet from the rear lot line. APPEALS COMUSSICN MIMING,'MAY 24, 1988 PAGE 12 Mr. Nelson stated if he would construct a detached garage, it would sit on about the only grassy area he has available right now. By adding the garage as he has proposed, it would leave him with a nice green grassy area with trees and shade in the back yard. If he constructed a detached garage, it would fill up more of the back yard because he has to stay back 17.5 feet fran the east lot line and there is a utility easement on the near lot line. Dr. Vos asked if there was no street problem on the east side and there was a house on the next lot, how far away from the lot line could Mr. Nelson build a garage? Mr. Clark stated if the City vacated the street, Mr. Nelson would first gain another 34 feet, but even if he did not gain another 34 feet, he could build the garage 5 feet from the lot line, and he would not need a variance. Dr. Vos stated the reason for the variance then was because of the situation of a nonexisting street. M. Savage asked if there was any procedure the petitioner could go through to request that the City vacate the street easement. Mr. Clark stated he did not think staff would want to recmz end the street be vacated until it is known how the whole block is going to develop. There was always the possibility the street will be needed in the future; but once the ease- ment is gone and a development floes occur, it would be very, very difficult to get that easement back. MJTICN by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA LEcLARED rm PUBLIC HEAmG CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he definitely thought there was a hardship here. There is not an existing street, but yet the petitioner cannot build a garage without a variance. If there was no street easement, the petitioner could build a garage without a variance. He had no objection to the variance as requested. Mr. Barna stated he agreed. He found it very difficult to tell someone he cannot build a garage 5 feet from an invisible street. He had no objection to the variance. MXTCN by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to approve variance request, VAR #88-10, by Joe Nelson, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03. D, (2) , (c) , (1) , of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot frzan 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage located on Lot 20, Black 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. UPCN A VOICE VOTE, RkRiA, SAVAGE, RUEC H,E, VOS, VOTING AYE, SHE1UK VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSCN BARNA DECLARED THE MOT'ICN CARRIED BY A VO'T'E OF 4-1. I C� • APPEAIS COMNBSSICN MEETING, MAY 24, 1988 PAGE 13 Mr. Sherek stated he had voted against the motion, not because he objected to the variance, but because he would like the City Council to look at this situation. In the event the street ever would go through there, the garage would be quite close to the street, and there could be some problems. 12X Mr. Barna stated that because of an objection by a Canrnission member, this item would go on to City Council for the Council's final action on June 20. 4. CCNSIMMICN CE' A CE REQUEST, VAR #88-11, BY SCOTT/UERSTENBERG: Pursuant to Chapter 20 .07.O1.B,(4),(a), of the Fndley ty Code to increase the maxim m allowable footage of a garage frau 1,000 q. ft. to 1,248 sq. ft. (also exceeds the square botage of the first floor of the dwelling unit) on Lot 16, Block 10, Donna Lake View Addition, the s being 550 - 57th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seccndeq by Mr. Kuechle, to op6n the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING , CHAIRPERSON OPEN AT 9:15 P.M. Chairperson Barna read the Adminis tine Staf ADNBNISTRATIVE AFF 550 - 57th A ue .E. VAR #88-1 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY Section 205.07. 01.B, (4) , (a) , not exceed 100% of the first maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. Public purpose served by quality of a neighbor -food Yale • �. �• DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING Report: es thaw a first accessory building shall area of a dwelling unit or exceed a /requirement is maintain the residential limiting the size dX accessory structures. "I have 2 boats, va:naw;Ebiles, 6 cars, 3 motorcycles and I want them under cover to prevent ism and burglary." C. ADYMNISTRATIVE STAFF' REVIEW: The foundation of the existing house is 1,037 sq. ft. a area of the existing garage ' 624 sq. ft. 'Ihe petitioner would like to le the size of the garage t 1,248 sq. ft. by adding onto the front of the existing garage. The of the lot is 10,125 sq. ft. The Board sh uld determine the need and hardship before acting on is request. Also please note by the survey that the existing garage does not llel the side lot ne. The front corner is 3 feet fran the east line and th back corner ' 5 feet; therefore, if the Board approves this request, it ld be recess for the petitioner to parallel the addition with the lot line to maint the minimum 3 feet setback. If the Board approves this request, the f has no stipulations to suggest. 0 � 0 APPEAIS C:)MMSSICN MMTMG, MY 24, 1988 PAGE 14 Mr. Fuerstenberg&ia ed the biggest reason why he needed the garage was because he has hlot of burglaries. His boat and motor stolen last winter, and his has been burglarized twice. He showed a Commissioners pictures of the les he owned. W. Fuerstenberg stat he has a very long driveway which 's hard to shovel in the wintertime. He fel the expanded garage would impr the appearance of his house because his do y is very cluttered with cies at this time. He stated both neighbors on Ther side of him do not cbj to the addition as long as the garage is built to t Ciode. M. Savage asked Mr. Fuers rg if it would help s situation if he were to expand his garage to 1,000 sq� t. which would Code. Mr. Fuerstenberg stated any space would he , but hew anted to get every- thing under cover. He stated that with Lake Po' to Drive nraiing behind his property, people going by can see a rything h owns, and people get ideas when things are not under cover. Mr. Roger Harald stated he lived next t 560 - 57th Avenue N.E. He stated he did not object to the garage expansi long as it net Code and the 3 foot side yard setback was maintained. Mr. Steve Billings, City Cbuncilmember s ed he was a little bit familiar with Mr. Fuerstenberg's garage. He ststed appro Lely 6-8 feet of the back of the garage was storage area that is acne sed h a walk-in door and which cannot be accessed from the drive-in spa in the gars*. So, in effect, the usable garage space, instead of being 26 eet in length was really about 20 feet in length. So, taking that into ideration, the ansion Dir. Fuerstenberg was requesting actually became 6 f less than that. Dr. Vos asked if Mr. Fuers rg could petition for special use permit for a second accessory building. W. Clark stated he had ted to Mr. Fuerstenberg'about that, but Mr. Fuerstenberg felt it would keep his r'a*cies more secure if he had one ge building instead of two smaller building W. .Barna stated he w9bld say part of the hardship would. be t a second accessory build - t would use more space, whereas this garage expansion uld only use blacktopped drivewa space. Mr. Clark stated 'f Mr. Fuerstenberg had a special use permit for second accessory buil ' g, he could build up to 1,400 sq. ft. Mr. Billings ted this is the third time in 1h weeks there has been vandalism in this neig hood, and it was a result of the Lake Pointe construct on. The back of the rcperties is more accessible and it is a situation where properties front on streets, but the second street is not a typical. residential treet. Dr. Vos tested he thought the hardship as stated by Mr. Furestenberg was no`t a viable YLardship. \ VAR #88-10 • Woe Nelson 12Y �a {ht577 /zs /Rr /sr of tom'' /lS /6 b (05 7) I 17 13 740)AW �B e r I se. % %) S �> 80 CO) • i ! �4 (400 320) NICE (�B% /4 125 AWE. N o /ZS /o to) 7f / :L `all ODlai�, w of rri 4 4ray) (41 1 ' 10 rllj . 13e .,� . 049 4 _ iLf Ki; b►�.ra ` 1 - - 609 • _w pl, rri 4 4ray) (41 1 ' 10 rllj . 13e 049 - - 609 • _w pl, LOCATION MAP 4 4ray) (41 1 ' 10 rllj . 13e - - 609 LOCATION MAP .( © r ' , , • 11 1TI n 11�1.1�1�1. i� � � � • � �...,.r . :::: �j'�'i'1111:11 ■ ®9 , ,�� r - :::: �l�ll LLG.•.1.� .... 111111Mill �� ....04PAPK. ■u■r d i:o�12/_� ....•�li� ... I �© .... ,...� 'ETA - HARRIS POND mass, 7r , ' par, now 10H.8A .■..... - ..■. ._. .7.. ... .. � J . ■■■■■■■■■mu• mum 1 ■■■■■i.■ WR inumn: 17 • ©HIO 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �MIR'1•:•1�b91•l�M' a� r •♦♦♦♦-A 'U 1 /' V VOW �• ���� .�♦;♦�♦ tib`© ��` �=�-�► , �s��� ©��f �Qa 1 1 ZONING MAP SITE PLAN MA WVAR #88-10 12Z e Nelson %wo G rn I e s— s V A ■ ww %w F-, v e719L.ATj Wj!w -W 41 LAM OYR Va Y Ao,} < �1 N.S. "N UTMOSTtoo" 00 ?SMT 1 AN A DMW IWMW� WO GMXM� MMM 1S 600 r 1M eawiO► ` i WALIE I'm - •'. OiATt MINNESOTA IEGISTRATMU NO. BB.1i o • 11!01 j M�IMIdM�'1' L X6.13- JU VP C So /,3111 V .�' to•A l Building Locations f / 'B" The rest 75.0 feet of the Block 1, Spring Valley Aa 7 ,'C' The rest 75.0 feet of �_' Block 1, Spring Valley A V foLetters are for denri pti pwrpests only OW at � a Used r transfer of title 1Y C m4- SITE 4- SITE PLAN t �1r1►® w- �.s 1 S.T ~ tisift, An0� east 309.0 /tt of Lot loo j li tiea a An*A County a *hm. V foLetters are for denri pti pwrpests only OW at � a Used r transfer of title 1Y C m4- SITE 4- SITE PLAN a- CITYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 ACTION TART NOTICE Joe Nelson 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, M1V 55432 June 27, 1988 on June 20, 1988 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR #88-10, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage, -located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: None. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, John L. Robertson Ommun.ity Development Director Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 5, 1988. 0 0 F'R MLEY CITY COUNCM PSE= OF JUNE 20, 1988 the traffic could go back to 52nd. Maybe they could also widen out east driveway entrance and allow traffic in and out. This would allow or more stacking space on 52nd. So, her suggestion would be to el''nate the western exit altogether, have an alternative exit on the nor side of the property, and the eastern driveway be widened and be th ingress and egress. Mr. Galush stated he would bate to see the western eway closed in case there was real congestion in the mall, but he have no objection if the mall was willing to permit TCF to have anothe easement on the north to cross over and go back out that way. Councilman Billings asked about TCF's t' le. Mr. Galush stated they were hoping Start construction in July, but that did not seem to feasible now ith the mall and motel going into receivership. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Galush would have any problem if the Council were to decide to le this for two weeks. Mr. Galush stated hew d have no problem with that. M MMON by Council illings to table the consideration of Variance, VAR #88-09, until the City Council meeting and to direct the Public Works Department to 1 into the possibility of increasing the timing of the light cn 52nd; to direct staff go out on Friday evening and/or Saturday morning to serve the present traffic situation and how the proposed changes d impact the traffic, and to work with Skywood on some kind of northern 't. This information to be brought back to the City Council at their ng&t regular meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice ote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried A-3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-10, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A CORNER LOCI FROM 17 .5 FEET TO 5.5 FEET TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, THE SAME TIPTAY'_ 1'Ar7 r%A ru IkXYTM7rTP M V Tiv .Tt)V WFT. TW - Mr. Robertson, C T mity Development Director, stated the Appeals Caurtmission heard this request on May 24 and recanmended approval with a 4-1 vote. The petitioner was proposing to add 12 feet onto the east side of his existing garage and extend the garage back double deep. The additional garage space would be 582 square feet for a total garage area of 1,000 square feet. In order to do this, he must have a side yard variance frau 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet. The petitioner's lot was a corner lot of which the side street is unimproved. The right -of --way for this proposed street was 50 feet wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated from Mr. Nelson's lot during a former lot split. The City has no immediate plans to improve the street and may never do so. Councilman Schneider stated he had visited the property and he did not see any problem with agreeing with ,the Appeals commission and approving the -19- FRIDLEY CITY CDiJN OF JUNE 20, 1988 variance. Even if the street went in sometime in the future, the addition would not prevent the street from going in. There might be an alignment consideration they might want to take into the right-of-way so there is more green space. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the only discussion for this area has been the potential drainage system from the storm sewer system up 'on Mississippdj:-Street, and that could probably be handled in the alley portion. M7PION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance, VAR #88-10, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot frau 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E., with no stipulations. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. Councilman Billings stated he just thought 5.5 feet was too close to a road that was likely to go in in the future. He thought that as a city 6 elops, they should plan their variances forever and not just for the sh9ft terns. A-4. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-11, TO IN SE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUARE FOOTAGE OF A GARAGE.' ROM 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO 1,248 SQUARE FEET (ALSO EXCEEDS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF THE DWELL= UNIT) ON LOT 16, BLACK 10, DOMW LAKE VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 550 - 57TH Mr. Robertson, Crntrnmity Development Director,/stated this was beard by the Appeals Commission on May 24th and was rec for denial by a vote of 3-2. The Code requires that a first acc sory building shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwe ing unit or exceed a maximum of 1,000 square feet. The public pu se was to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiti the size of accessary structures. The foundation of the house was 1,037 a feet. The petitioner has stated his hardship was he had two b ts, two snowmobiles, six cars, three motorcycles, and needed to get em under cover to prevent vandalism and burglary. Mr. Robertson stated tha Darrel Clark had also noted in the staff report that the existing Ziance does not parallel the side lot line. The front corner is 3 feet he east lot line and the back corner is 5 feet; therefore, if the is approved., the petitioner will have to parallel the addition wit line to maintain the minimum 3 foot setback. Mr. Scott Fue stenberg stated the biggest reason he wanted to build his garage gaswas was because he has had a lot of vandalism and burglary. A sidewalLake Point Drive run right behind his property, therefore peoplee what he owns. He stated he did not have to build as big a para being suggested; he would agree to a size. Fuerstenberg stated his garage does have a divider in it so about 6 feet -20- 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of a Variance, VAR #88-10 Joe Nelson , Owner 832329 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 20th day of June 1 19-2—, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet, to allow an addition to an existing attached garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: No stipulations. See City Council minutes of June 20, 1988. 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 hand at the City of Fr ey, Min esota, ine County of Anoka on the day of 19• DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SHIRLEY A. H APALA, CITY Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval ani shall- be considered void if not used within that period. c^ le FRIDLEY MY COMM Mk=yG OF JUNE 20, 1988 the traffic could go back to 52nd. Maybe they could also widen out the east driveway entrance and allow traffic in and out. This would allow for more stacking space on 52nd. So, her suggestion would be to eliminate the western exit altogether, have an alternative exit on the north side of -e property, and the eastern driveway be widened and be both ingre and egress. Mr. Gaiush stated he would hate to see the western driveway osed in case there was real congestion in the mall, but he would have objection if the mall was willing to permit TCF to have another easem on the north to cross oder and go back out that way. Councilman Billings asked about TCF's timetable. Mr. Galush stated they were hoping to start truction in July, but that did not seem to feasible now with a mall and motel going into receivership. Councilman Billings asked if Mr Galosh would have any problem if the Council were to decide to table 's for two weeks. Mr. Galush stated he would a no problem with that. MJTION by Councilman B" lings to table the consideration of Variance, VAR #88-09, until the City Oaimcil meeting and to direct the Public Works Department to 1 into the possibility of increasing the timing of the light on 52nd; to direct staff go out on Friday evening and/or Saturday morning to serve the present traffic situation and how the proposed changes d impact the traffic, and to work with Skywood on some kind of northe exit. This infoanation to be brought back to the City Council at the' next regular meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a v ce vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried A-3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-10, TO REDUCE THE YARD SETBACK ON A OORNER IAT FROM 17.5 FEET TO 5.5 FE. ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, THE BEING 1357 - 64TH AVENUE N.E., BY JOE NELSON: Mr. Robertson, Ccnmwnity Development Director, stated the Appeals Omission heard this request on May 24 and recamnerbded approval with a 4-1 vote. The Petitioner was proposing to add 12 feet onto the east side of his existing garage and extend the garage back double deep. The additional garage space would be 582 square feet for a total garage area of 1,000 square feet. In order to do this, he must have a side yard variance fram 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet. The petitioner's lot was a corner lot of which the side street is unimproved. The right-of-way for this proposed street was 50 feet wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated from Mr. Nelson's lot during a former lot split. The City has no immediate plans to improve the street and may never do so. Councilman Schneider stated he bad visited the property and he did not see any problem with agreeing with the Appeals Commission and approving the -19- 11* �1� M •• 1 M� ISI � • 1 1 1 variance. Even if the street went in sometime in the future, the addition would not prevent the street from going in. There might be an alignment consideration they might want to take into the right-of-way so there is more gra space. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the only discussion for this area has been the .potential drainage system from the storm sewer system up on Mississippi Street, and that could probably be handled in the alley portion. M TION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance, VAR #88-10, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E., with no stipulations. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. Councilman Billings stated he just thought 5.5 feet was too close to a road that was likely to go in in the future. He thought that as a city develops, they should plan their variances forever and not just for the short terns. A- RATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-11, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A GARAGE FROM 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO 1,248 SQUARE FEET (ALSO EXCEEDS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF THE DWELLING UNIT) ON LOT 57TH AVENUE N.E., BY SCOTT : Nr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated this was heard Ji the Appeals Commission on May 24th and was recommended for denial by a ote of 3-2. The Code requires that a first accessory building shall t exceed 100$ of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or exceed maximum of 1,000 square feet. The public purpose was to maintain residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of acces structures. The foundation of the house was 1,037 square feet. The pet' ioner has stated his hardship was he had two boats, two snowmobil , six cars, three motorcycles, and needed to get them under cover to revent vandalism and burglary. Mr. Robertson stated that Darrel Clark had o noted in the staff report that the existing garage does not parall the side lot line. The front corner is 3 feet from the east lot 1' a and the back corner is 5 feet; therefore, if the variance is approv , the petitioner will have to parallel the addition with the lot lime to 'ntain the mininumm 3 foot setback. Mr. Scott Fuerstenberg state the biggest reason he wanted to build his garage larger was because has had a lot of vandalism and burglary. A sidewalk and Lake Poin Drive run right behind his property, therefore people can see what owns. He stated he did not have to build as big a garage as was bei suggested; he would agree to a size. W. Fuerstenbpf stated his garage does have a divider in it so about 6 feet -20- 832320 Numwicet.4'.,� CD Granter, Grantee+� Recorded Checked 77 m Margin _ ' Tr. Index . o w 0 0 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF ANOM I hereby certify that the within instrtt• ment was tiled in this office for record on the NOV 2 , R'q ALo'clocNjLhl., and was duly recorded C=r4V r By o.o.ty City of Fridley Community Development Dept. 6431 University Ave. N. E. Fridley, MN 55432 CITY of FRILL EY 14 4 J � P T.l :1ale i�c�v l�'i��J177187- 41A9_ i�a6.s7 �f /�<3z az. 6E F: W I fio Iso 5� AV E. N L 'o' 64TH /IS 9 , ,, sy day M ��� �• X354 � ? 14 � ; newb.e til KIohS II: �� � u 9 /7 3553 _ . ((ffZ//oy/93 (xf l ¢B� W 33iS97 127 l ✓ I �' yzo �3 2 y. ry oq2( /9 co)Ll (,e) (10 6 yon l� ,�«i AV E. N L 'o' 64TH /IS 9 , ,, sy o X354 (0)(41)- /7 3553 . W 33iS97 127 l ✓ I �' yzo AV E. N L 'o' /Z5 /IS /,tf /co ja (0)(41)- RG E o 14 127 l ✓ I �' yzo �3 2 y. �yz6 I J y — A . c-IRVINGTON AU6 APPEALS comKLSSION MEETING, MAY 24, 1988 PAGE 10 5. T.C.F. will develop seek app 1 for a directional signage program for the prq�os CL on system. 6. T.C.F. will work with to the screening for the dump- ster and utility equipment ed cn the north end of the site. 7. T.C.F. will supply a perfo bond in the am:xmt of $10,000 to cover the agreed-upon site imp ts. 8. All of the outlined imp is 'll be installed and functional prior to file operation f the a ddrive-through area. INC) , 111,1111 11 ?-A NI 0AC) Wo 3. ODMIDERATIC IN OF A VARIANCE MUEST, VAR #88-10, BY JOE NEI.SOiN : Pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03.D, (2) , (c) , 1 , of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attadzed garage l.ocatec? on lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. MM -1W by M. Savage, seconded by W. Sherek, to open the public hearing- UPCN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSSCN BAR4A rECC,ARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:00 P.M. Chairperson Barna read the Adninistrative Staff Report: 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. VAR 688-18 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY FdWIIWWU: Section 205.07.03.D,(2),(c),(1), requires that the side yard setback on a street side of a corner lot shall not be 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. STATED HNMSHIP: 1. The present setback from the east lot line does not allow me the full utilization of the 75 ft. frontage that I own. 2. Adding an additional detached garage, regardless of its size, does not lend itself to an efficient plot plan, in that valuable back yard space would be consumed. 3. Access to an additional detached garage would not be acceptable due to the unimproved condition of the side street easement. 4. I presently own three vehicles plus snowmobiles and a trailer, all of which are worthy of protection from the elements and possible theft. Adding the space as requested would allow me to protect my personal property. ------------- a86t VMP r L 52ON 1 • MPLY 24 -1988 PAGE' 11 5. Presently I am parking one vehicle in the driveay. This results°'in having to constantly shuffle vehicles depending on which vehicle is driven on a given day. 6. Parking in the street is congested resulting in an inconvenience to my neighbors and increases the possibility of damage to those vehicles. 7. An addition, as proposed, would result in an aesthetically pleasing structure with logical and convenient access. Making the addition attached rather than detached should increase the value of my property and I assume would therefore reflect favorably to the property values of my neighbors. C. AMUNISTPATM STAFF MIEW: The petitioner's lot is a corner lot of which the side streeet is unimproved. The right-of-way for this proposed street is 50 feee wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated from this lot during a former lot split. The City has no immediate plans to improve the street and may never improve it depending upon what future development would take place in this super block. If, however, the Board approves this request, staff has no stipulations to suggest. Mr. Clark stated this is rather' a large block, encompassed by 64th Avenue on the east, Mississippi Street on the north, and Central Avenue on the west. He stated it was Logical to dedicate street right-of-way and put a street down the middle from Arthur to Central if other property owners should split their lots. However, no street has been designed or is being planned at this time. The City does not even ]mow if the street will ever be put in. It would depend upon whether the property owners in the neighborhood want to divide up their properties. A typical lot in this block is 125 ft. by 300+ ft., nearly three times the size of a normal residential lot. W. Clark stated the petitioner would like to add 12 feet onto the east side of his existing* garage and extend the garage back double deep. The additional garage space would be 582 sq. ft. for a total garage area of 1,000 sq. ft. In order to build this additional garage space, the petitioner is requesting a side yard variance from 17.5 feet from the street riot of-wav to 5.5 feet. He showed the.CamAssioners a picture taken from the street which showed the easterly end of the garage and the unimproved street. Mr. Clark stated that if the street was ever put in or if the street was there already, Mr. Nelson might have elected to put a detached garage in the rear yard with a separate driveway entrance onto the new street. However, that was not an option today, because there are no plans for a street. Dr. Vos asked how far the garage would be from the rear lat line. Mr. Nelson stated it would be 45+ feet from the rear lot line. APPEALS OMMSSICN MING, MY 24, 1988 PACS 12 Mr. Nelson stated if he would construct a detached garage, it would sit on about the only grassy area he has available right now. By adding the garage as he has proposed, it would leave him with a nice green grassy area with trees and shade in the back yard. If he constructed a detached garage, it would fill up more of the back yard because he has to stay back 17.5 feet frcan the east lot line and there is a utility easement on the rear lot line. Dr. Vos asked if there was no street problem on the east side and there was a house on the next lot, how far away f x n the lot line could Mr. Nelson build a garage? Mr. Clark stated if the City vacated the street, Mr. Nelson would first gain another 34 feet, but even if he did not gain another 34 feet, he could build the garage 5 feet from the lot line, and he would not need a variance. Dr. Vos stated the reason for the variance then was because of the situation of a nonexisting street. ' Ms. Savage asked if there was any procedure the petitioner could go tYirough to request that the City vacate the street easement. Mr. Clark stated he did not think staff would want to recommend the street be vacated until it is known how the whole block is going to develop. There was always the possibility the street will be'needed in the future; but once the ease- ment is gone and a development does occur, it would be very, very difficult to get that easement back. Y MWICN by Dr. Vos, seconded by Pt. Savage, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA IEECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M. Dr. Vas stated he definitely thought there was a hardship here. There is not an existing street, but yet the petitioner cannot build a garage without a variance. If there was no street easement, the petitioner could build a garage without a variance. He had no objection to the variance as requested. Mr. Barna stated he agreed. He found it very difficult to tell someone he cannot build a garage 5 feet from an invisible street. He had no objection to the variance. MMON by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve variance request, VAR #88-10, by Joe Nelson, pursuant to Chapter 205.07.03. D, (2) , (c) , (1) , of the Fridley City Oode to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. LST A VOICE VOQ'E, BARNA, SAVAGE, KUECHIE, VO6, VOTING AYE, SH = VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MCII'ICN CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. 171 CITYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 QTY OJUNCIL ACTION TARN NOTICE Joe Nelson 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 June 27, 1988 On June 20, 1988 the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Variance, VAR #88-10, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing attached garage, located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: None. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450. Sincerely, �J John L. Robertson Cennunity Developnent Director JLR/Clm Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return arae copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 5, 1988. M r art"1'Y U.JV14L.1-LJ rw' r,.L uNV V, __ _ -- the traffic could go back to 52nd. Maybe they could also widen out the east driveway entrance and allow traffic in and out. This would al 1 ow for more stacking space on 52nd. So, her suggestion would be to eliminate the western exit altogether, have an alternative exit on the north side of the property, and the eastern driveway be widened and be both ingress and egress. W. Galush stated he would hate to see the western driveway closed in case there was real congestion in the mall, but he would have no objection if the mall was willing to permit TCF to have another easement on the north to cross over and go back out that way. Councilman Billings asked about TCF's timetable. Mr. Galush stated they were hoping M to art construction in July, but that did not seem to feasible now with the mall and motel going into receivership. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Galush would have any problem if the Council were to decide to table this for two weeks. Mr. Galush stated he wage have no problem with that. MOTION by Council illings to table the consideration of Variance, VAR #88-09, until the City Council meeting and to direct the Public Works Department to 1 into the possibility of increasing the timing of the light on 52nd, to direct staff go out on Friday evening and/or Saturday morning to serve the present traffic situation and how the proposed changes w d impact the traffic, and to work with Skywood on some kind of northern 't. This infoniaticn to be brought back to the City Council at their regular meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice ote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried ly. A-3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-10, To REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK 94 A ODRNER LCT FROM 17.5 FEET TO 5.5 FEET TO AIIADK AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, THE SAME BEING 1357 - 64TH AVENUE N.E., BY JOE NELSON: Mr. Robertson, C mmnity Development Director, stated the Appeals Catmission heard this request on May 24 and recacmended approval with a 4-1 vote. The petitioner was proposing to add 12 feet onto the east side of his existing garage and extend the garage back double deep. The additional garage space would be 582 square feet for a total garage area of 1,000 square feet. In order to do this, he must have a side yard variance frau 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet. The petitioner's lot was a corner lot of which the side street is droved. The right-of-way for this proposed street was 50 feet wide, 34 feet of which was dedicated fran Mr. Nelson's lot during a fanner lot split. The City has no inmediate plans to improve the street and may never do so. Councilman, Schneider stated he bad visited the property and he did not see _ any problem with agreeing with .the Appeals Commission and approving the -19- variance. Even if the street went in sometime in the future, the addition would not prevent the street from going in. There might be an alignment consideration they might want to take into the right-of-way so there is more green space. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the only discussion for this area has been the potential drainage system from the storm sewer system upon Mississippj:-Street, and that could probably be handled in the alley portion. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Ocnmission and grant Variance, VAR. #88-10, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 5.5 feet to allow an addition to an existing garage located on Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E., with no stipulations. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. Councilmen Billings stated he just thought 5.5 feet 'was too close to a road that was likely to go in in the future. He thought that as a city develops, they should plan their variances forever and not just far the short-term. A-4. ODNSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE, VAR #88-11, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A GARAGE -FROM 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO 1,248 SQUARE FEET (ALSO EXCEEDS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF THE DWELLING UNIT) ON LOT 16, BLOCK 10, DC NAY LAKE VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 550 - 57TH AVENUE N.E., BY SCOTT FuERsrENBERG:" Mr. Robertson, Ocrmnity Development Director, -'stated this was heard by the Appeals Catmission on May 24th and was reccr9r&nded for denial by a vote of 3-2. The Code requires that a first accessory building shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or exceed a maxim= of 1,000 square feet. The public purpose was to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures. The foundation of the louse was 1,037 .square feet. The petitioner has stated his hardship was he had two boats, two snowmobiles, six cars, three motorcycles, and needed to get/them under cover to prevent vandalism and burglary. /Da=el Mr. Robertson stated that Clark had also noted in the staff report that the existing garage does not parallel the side lot line. The front corner is 3 feet fret the east lot line and the back corner is 5 feet; therefore, if the variance is approved, the petitioner will have to parallel the addition with,£he lot line to maintain the minimum 3 foot setback. Mr. Scott Fuerstenberg stated the biggest reason he wanted to build his garage 1 arger was because he has had a 1 of of vandal i sm and burgl ary. . A sidewalk and Lake Point Drive run right behind his property, therefore people can see what he owns. He stated be did not have to build as big a garage%'as was being suggested; he would agree to a size. Mrd Fuerstenberg stated his garage does have a divider in it so about 6 feet 1 -20- J^tARG L. KURT$*' LA WO ounvoyam am N.S. C04AMMA NOOK" 19W � UPI W v vas! Two WAWOWP. 0"m ON =POW r POWNRAW my 90 "a, WWO WW gnaw OWMAMOM "IAT I JW A DULT MMSWMr 600 MUMNOWSM Ws "M Mw 4W TM WWO 4W "OT DAW W&Lz MINNffWTA IKGMTOtATWH NO. I= emil" UMQWT k Mt 50 q;�q 0 Building Location we" The viest 75.0 feet of the t M-0 feet of no Block 1. Spring Valley Meat ARO" .,/�,C" The west 75.0 feet of east 109.0 Beet of UK 209 Block 1, Spring Valley ities, AMU County, Mm. Valley Letters are for descriptive pwpms only and got to be used for transfer of title SITE PLAN