Loading...
VAR 05.76City of Fridley r AT THE TOP OF THE TNJINS ,C, i �• _____ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. 1 PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 4 ----�% �•' 61P-560-3450 sufljECT . I O TO BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OFAP .1 2 PROVED BY 800 Namey������6��Address Phone Phoe-, /_- q4 Legal Description Lot No. Block No. Tract or Addn. A�- %, d(lZ-/Vfj-..S Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) OAJ /0 T67 T& IIZZ a [ILI ear 776 -V Oz �,�OoQ fir°®� . 4 YI-5 ,1416 D %/2 11V6 6 WMH 24-x' o e- y Jo z>s an d • Dated % Meeti g Date �l 1761 Fgcy / 1 Receipt No. �� Signature `Z Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals-/�`�%�;7 City Council Action and Date MO r SUHJECr City of 14 eidIey J, 9 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS r „ 1 `• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. (Staff Report) r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 � 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMHE.R FIEV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVEO.HY 612-560-3450 910�r23 1 3/21/75 2 2 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting byList members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to aVlend hearing, Plan I Date ITo Attend Name ES Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 fco+. ntet-; f; AA . By Whom 013 y�t�� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 881 -66th Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, side yard set back of 10 feet Public purpose is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjoining structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjoining structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire between structures and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family (with single car garage) needs more room and private covenant on land doesn't allow building of an accessory structure. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Field measurements show that there is 10 feet 2 inches between this existing garage and the garage to the west. There is no living area below these two garages. The back walls of the two garages are approximately in line, which would mean that the proposed addition would involve living area within 101� feet of the neighboring garage. The petitioner has stated that he doesn't plan to install any windows on the west side of this addition. Apparently the lower level would be used for storage. Although the petitioner's deed or private covenant on his land doesn't allow for an accessory structure, City Code section 205.051, 2A, allows one accessory structure. It is not the City's job to enforce private covenants- Staff feels that a primary consideration in this request would be the feelings of the neighbor to the west. Submitted by Ron Holden Building Inspection Officer May 11, 1976 VCemy g�w" 871 66th eve. A. a 99499, c DOL May 9, 1976 Re: Michael J. Gustafson 881 -66th Ave. N.E. I give my permission for a -variance with the following stipulation: that the house is extended not any closer to the lot line than it is now. If it were extended closer it would make my property lose in resale value$ as the FHA and VA would not approve of loans for a house with an unclear title. Kerry Brunkow OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesiday, May 11, 1976 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053,.4B, Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback for living area from the required 10 feet to 5 feet approximately (no survey available at this time) to allow an addition to be constructed onto the back of an existing dwelling located on Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, the same being 881 -66th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432. (Request by Mr. Michael J. Gustafson, 881 -66th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432.) Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA WAHLBERG CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION 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 Board'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. .FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 3 J building permit for that property and had been turned down because of the creek. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Plemel said that he could understand Mr. Kobs feelings, and because of the reasons stated he would have no objection to granting the variance. Mr. Kemper agreed. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to grant the variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairwoman Wahlberg informed Mr: Kobs that he could now apply for his building permit and proceed with construction, and that this would also be routinely reviewed by the City Council. �. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.053, 4B5 TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LIVING AREA FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO 5 FEET APPROXDtkTELY, (NO SURVEY AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME), TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONTO THE BACK OF AN EX LLING LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MEADOWLANDS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING TH AVENUE . FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55.32. (REQUEST BY MR. MICHAEL J. GU ., - H AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55.32.) MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, side yard setback of 10 feet. Public purpose is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjoining structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjoining structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire between structures and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family (with single car garage) needs more room and private .covenant on land doesn't allow building of an accessory structure. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Field measurements show that there is 10 feet, 2 inches between this existing garage and the garage to the west. There is no living area below these two garages. The back walls of the two garages are approximately in line, which would mean that the proposed addition would involve living area within 10� feet of the neighboring garage. The petitioner has stated that he doesn't plan to install any windows on the west side of this addition. Apparently the lower level would be used for storage. Although the -petitioner's deed or private covenant on his land doesn't allow for an accessory structure, City Code section 205.051, 2A, allows one accessory structure. It is not the City's ,job to enforce private covenants. Staff feels that a primary consideration in this request would be the feelings of the neighbor to the west. FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 4 Mr. Gustafson was at the meeting to present his request. He showed the Commission photographs of his house and a survey that was made before the house was constructed. He pointed out where the addition would be put on. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked if his dwelling went back at an angle, and Mr. Gustafson said it got further away from the lot line. She asked what he proposed to add on, and he replied a walk -out basement with a family room upstairs following the exact construction of the house. He explained there would be a door into the basement and a door into the upstairs, and that the basement would be used for storage. He stated th ac he had a single -car garage and his deed stated he could not build a shed, and his family, which included three children, needed the storage room. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked if there were any other living quarters behind the garage, and Mr. Gustafson replied there wasn't, and it had been filled in. Mr. Kemper asked if there was presently a basement under the home but not under the garage, and Nfr. Gustafson said that was correct, and he would not be digging out under the garage. Mr. Plemei asked if the neighbors had something built on, and Mr. Gustafson answered that they had added on about five years ago. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked if there were any particular requirements that the city would make on this in regard to fire hazards, and Mr. Holden said he would strongly recommend windows be eliminated in the living area on the west side. He also said that sheet rock would be reouired before the siding went on. Chairwoman Wahlberg pointed out the fire protection would be wise for their own protection and for insurance purposes as well, and Mr. Gustafson said he didn't mind if there were any_ stipulations. Chairwoman Wahlberg read the following letter from Mr. Gustafson's neighbor to the west: Re: Michael J. Gustafson 881 -66th Ave., N.E. I give my permission for a variance with the following stipulation: that the house is exterded not any closer to the lot line than it is now. If it were extended closer it would make my property lose in resale value, as the FHA and VA would not approve of loans for a house with an unclear title. The letter was signed Kerry Brunkow, and dated May 92 1976. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Bhrna, to receive the letter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Gustafson if he realized he wouldn't need a variance if he would move the addition over, and Mr. Gustafson replied he did but then there would be dead space and the cost would be about the same. He also explained he wanted to coincide with the existing overhang for aesthetic reasons, and that if he did move the addition over he would have to break up an existing patio. Chairwoman Wahlberg said she was concerned about gas fumes, and asked if there was any direct access from the house into the garage from the room behind, and Mr. Gustafson said there was not. 4 - FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 5 MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Pleme1, to approve the request for variance with the stipulation that a fire wall be required on the west side. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,'the motion carried unanimously. Chairwoman Wahlberg explained to Mr. Gustafson that his request had been approved and he was free to apply for his building permit. 5. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.053, 4A, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 29 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE AND GARAGE TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST 85 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OAK CREEK ADDITION PLAT 2, THE SAME BEING 109 GLEN CREEK ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY 1�!R. RON ENROOTH, 7340 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY.. MN. 55432.) MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a -voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRk4ENT: Section 205.053, 4A, front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served by this section is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consid- eration of the neighborhood to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: A 35 foot setback would involve the removal of one additional tree, and a lesser setback could fit in better with existing setbacks. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIETT: Examination of the lot shows that a 35 foot setback would in fact -require .the removal of one additional tree. The house West of this lot has a 39 foot setback. The garage to the East is setback 23.2 feet from the front lot line, which is permissible because it is situated on a corner lot. This lot is the result of a recent lot split by the owner to the East, who is also the petitioner. Although an additional tree would be sacrificed to build with a 35 foot setback, such a setback would not be out of order because the City Zoning Code does allow for a 17.5 setback for a corner lot such as the lot to the East, in this case. There is an 8 foot boulevard in this area, which would give a 37 foot setback from the curb with a.29 foot setback. Mrs. Enrooth was at the meeting to represent her husband, who had been called away on a business trip. Chairwoman Wahlberg read the following letter to the Appeals Commission dated May 10, 1976 from Mr. Ron Enrooth: Subject: Request for variance - front yard setback - 109 Glen Creek Road, Fridley. FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976 —PAGE 6 A business trip for my employer (.Honeywell) has made it impossible for me to attend your meeting Tuesday night'. Please do not judge my absence as a lack of interest or importance on the above subject matter. A lot split, earlier this ,year, was approved by the Planning Department and the City Council, conforming to city regulations. I have two reasons for requesting the setback variance: 1. To save one mature maple tree. 2. Provide a gradual setback in comparison to the adjacent lots, i.e.: the setback to the east is 23.2 feet, to the west 35 feet. In addition to the setback, the city has a full 10 foot easement from the lot line to the street. I have discussed this setback variance with all the neighbors within 100 feet -of said property, without objections. I own the property to the east, Ben Ho to the south, and Dean Coleman to the west. Ple�tse see signed statements from Mrs. Ho and Mrs. Coleman. Thank you for your consideration. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to receive the letter from Mr. Enrooth. Upon ^ voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairwoman 11ahlberg said the survey showed a 30 foot setback,. and asked if this was a change from the 29 foot setback. Mrs. Enrooth replied she thought so, but wasn't positive. Mr. Holden showed on the drawing that by using the house plan shoimgthe trees could be saved. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked if there was some doubt in their minds as to the actual design of the house, and Mrs. Enrooth said they chose the side- split to save the trees, and the plans were being drawn now. ChairwomanWahlberg said that .if there was any way they could work out the plan to go back even further, that would be preferable, but 29 feet would be as close as they could come if this variance is to be approved. She asked if the living area would be across the back of the house, and Mrs. Enrooth replied it would. Air. Barna asked if the back of the lot was on the creek, and Mrs. Enrooth said it was not. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel commented that aesthetically this would be more pleasing, and she favored saving the trees. She said she wouldn't have any objections. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to grant the variande. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairwoman Wahlberg told Mrs. Enrooth that they could proceed with the construction.