Loading...
VAR 02.855/W/85 .15 CITY OF FRIDLEY, COMMISSION APPLICATION MINNESOTA REVIEW COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST PALE No, AOOACS13 Ulous7ne PILE GATE }For z - --to' I of s 7,111 RETURN TO PLANNING pyp - (7Fj� (�i Gc�, COMMENTS ' Jim & AOV-� s� PHIL Ute( (Ton � a—Darrel 0 Mark &glyde EJ� ?t /G l %i' ��tSEfyt!'.4 ?S ohn CITY OF FAIOLEY, SUBJECT VARIANCES 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. NB. VVV FRIDLCY� MN. 65438 R6't81,671-3450 ADDRESS /Duo - d o c s e,- dt--f Svc W� DATE APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE /moo/sem NO.______r_ CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: REQUIRED: AYES CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE N0. STIPULATIONS: E.2A, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VARIANCE•REQUEST(S): �sSc�1�5 4'C FEE ��'�® RECEIPT No.l'y� LOT NO. BLOCK NO. TRACT OR ADDITION (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) Ili -70 Section(s) of the City Code: List specific hardship(s) which requires the variance(s): DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS ISS lSS l P -p 1 �T, TELEPHONE NO S7 L -L 77 VARIANCES - FOR CITY USE ONLY � w__—J ��___ ���,�. _� tel// �� ✓ wa4 W AIGU</OIa few 4I1 ICY V1 date notified. and "Yes" ' MCL4119 07 ��'� or "Ho" for plans to attend hearing. Mame . L15L Members, Plan Date*- To Attend r erso: •king appeal and notified: - Nam the following property mmers having property within 200 feet By Whom - Date Phone or Mail Notified I . r Planning Commission 5 />/7/P - c 4 tj; 6 'eve- i I jW >/7 P- jr MAILING LIST L. :a 55-oyt McnWeld -A-- z �c. "-5, Townhous view ZOA #84-05 -3 a e same property Wallace Miller J. Dee & R. Ferguson 831 40th Avenue N.E. 6811 Oakley Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Mn 55421 Fridley, Mn 55432 J. A. Menkveld Hazel V. Samba 1299 Mississippi Street N.E. 6821 Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 1r,r ey, Mn Mr. & Mrs. Donald Boyer Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Percic 999 Pandora Drive N.E. 1020 68tH Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Herman Heath Ardell Marcus 991 Pandora Drive N.E. 1010 68th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Donald Crispin Francis R. Nash 6820 Oakley Street N.E. 1000 68th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. James Brubakken Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Vos 6810 Oakley Street N.E. 990 68th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Anderson Michael Servetus Unitarian Society 6800 Oakley Street N.E. 7170 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Floyd C. Bradley Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Gerrety 6830 Brookview Drive N.E. 1051 67th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Roger Patton Mr. & Mrs. Walter Leimgruber 6820'Brookview Drive N.E. 1027 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Bryce Shimmon Mr. & Mrs. Elton Bolduan 6810 Brookview Drive N.E. 6554 Brookview Drive N.E. Fridley;.MN 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Richard H. Schoen Mr. & Mrs. Steven Flattum 6800 Brookview, Drive N.E. 6566 Brookview, Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Strand Mr. & Mrs. Peter Vagovich 6801 Oakley Street N.E. 6600 Brookview, Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 21 22 Mailing List, Page 2 P:S. #85-04 and ZOA #85-05 R-1 to R-3 Mr. & Mrs. Orville Jacobson 6606 Brookview Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert M. Clausen 6799 Overton Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mr. Jeffrey Gustafson 6558 Oakley Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Lewis H. Doyle 6551 Oakley Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Louis G. Wells 6553 Oakley Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 1185 in regard to the following matter: Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard width for a dwelling from the required 75 feet to 70 feet for two dwellings to be located on Lot 7, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition, the same being 1040 and 1050 67th Avenue N.E. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. PATRICIA GABEL 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 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. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT Item #1, March 26, 1985 1040, 10501 1060 67th Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3E states the width of a lot shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet at the required setback. Public purpose served by this requirement is to eliminate overcrowding in a residential area. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We have more than ample square footage for the three lots but the street frontage is slightly less than required." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The total size of Lot 7, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition is 234 feet (north/south) by 215 feet (east/west). A lot split was approved by the City in 1972 dividing the lot into three parcels. One parcel being the south 100 feet; the other two remaining parcels were the north 134 feet, split into equal frontages facing 67th Avenue. The south 100 foot parcel was recorded, however the north 134 foot parcel remained one parcel at the Recorder's Office and the City action approving the lot split has become void due to the time lapse. The petitioner had very recently asked for approval of a townhouse development on this parcel but he has since withdrawn that request and has now petitioned to have the parcel divided into three single family lots that are 75 feet, 70 feet, and 70 feet wide. Each new parcel would exceed the required 99000 square foot lot area. The petitioner has been issued one building permit on the entire parcel, therefore if this petition is approved, he would have two more lots for development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split at their February 27, 1985 meeting. This recommendation together with the Appeals Commission recommendation on the variance will go to the City Council on April 15, 1985. The petitioner has already dedicated to the City the easements necessary to serve the property with City utilities. If the variance is recommended for approval, the staff suggests that You stipulate that the petitioner agree to pay two park fees, agree to Pay for any street and utility improvements, and agree to record the lot split prior to any more building permits being applied for. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH .26,.1985 ............ .............................................................. 'CALL'TO ORDER: Chairperson Gabel called the March 26, 1985, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL*CALL: Members Present: Pat Babel, Alex Barna, Jean Gerou, Jim Plemel, Donald Betzold Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley J. A. Menkveld, 1299 Mississippi St. N.E. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY-12;'1985;'APPEALS-COMMISSION'MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. GEROU, TO APPROVE THE FEB. 12, I985, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 -OF -THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE DWELLINGS s , --(Request y J.A. MenkFeldssoc a es, Inc., 1299 Mi"ssir—ssippi Street ., Fridley, Mn. 55432) MOTION BY MS. GEROU, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Administrative Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1040, 1050, 1060 67th Avenue N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3B states the width of a lot shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet at the required setback. Public purpose served by this requirement is to eliminate overcrowding in a residential area. APPEALS COMMISSION -MEETING. -MARCH -26;'1985 " " '-. " '--" - -.... PAGE'2 B. STATED HARDSHIP: "We have more than ample square footage for the three lots but the street frontage is slightly less than required." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The total size of Lot 7, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition is 234 feet (north/south) by 215 feet (east/west). A lot split was approved by the City in 1972 dividing the lot into three parcels. One parcel being the south 100 feet; the other two remaining parcels were the north 134 feet split into equal frontages facing 67th Avenue. The south 100 foot parcel was recorded, however the north 134 foot parcel remained one parcel at the Recorder's Office and the City action approving the lot split has become void due to the time lapse. The petitioner had very recently asked for approval of a townhouse development on this parcel, but he has since withdrawn that request and has now petitioned to have the -parcel divided into three single family lots that are 75 feet, 70 feet, and 70 feet wide. Each new parcel would exceed the required 9,000 square foot lot area. The petitioner has been issued one building permit on the entire parcel, therefore if this petition is approved, he would have two more lots for development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split at their February 27, 1985, meeting. This recommendation together with the Appeals Commission recommendation on the variance will go to the City Council on April 15, 1985. The petitioner has already dedicated to the City the easements necessary to serve the property with City utilities. If the variance is recommended for approval, the staff suggests that you stipulate that the petitioner agree to pay two park fees, agree to pay for any street and utility improvements, and agree to record the lot split prior to any more building permits being applied for. Mr. Clark stated that enclosed in the Commission agenda was the Planning Commission minutes in which the Planning Commission approved the lot split contingent on the Appeals Commission's approval of the variance. He stated that at the last City Council meeting, the City Council also approved the lot split contingent upon the Appeals Commission's review. He stated there were some other stipulations placed on the approval of the lot split, and the petitioner has already agreed to those stipulations. The petitioner has already dedicated all the easements requested by Staff and City Council and Planning Commission. Besides the variance for lot width, no other variances are needed. APPEALS COMMISSION'MEETING;'MARCH 26;'1985 " " " " " . " " ' " " . PAGE 3 Mr. Menkveld stated the information Mr. Clark had given was accurate and reflected his position. MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD WIDTH OF A LOT USED FOR A DWELLING FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FEET TO 70 FEET FOR TWO DWELLINGS TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, BROOKVIEW SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 1040 AND 1050 67TH AVENUE N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2.' OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Clark handed out a page out of the Zoning Code pertaining to the required front footages for lots. He stated this was in direct relation- ship to the public hearing they had just had. He read 205.07.3.E Lot Width: B. Lot Width The width of a lot shall not be less than seventy-five (75) feet at the required setback, except: (1) (2) If lot splits are permitted with the lot width less than the required seventy-five (75) feet, the lot must still meet the most restrictive lot requirements and setbacks; except for the lot area and lot width. Mr. Clark stated that he felt it was pretty clear that it said that the, lot split variance they had just heard at this meeting would not have been necessary as long as the Planning Commission and the City Council recognized the footages they were approving, and, in fact, the Planning Commission held a public hearing advertising their action on the lot split. He stated there was some confusion as to whether the Appeals Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council wanted the Appeals Commission to have a special hearing just on the variance. If the Appeals Commission, Planning Commission,and City Council feel a hearing should be held at Appeals Commission like they had Just done, then he felt Item #2 (above) should be deleted from the Zoning Code. Mr. Barna stated that ordinarily a lot split went to Planning Commission, to Appeals Commission, and then to City Council. This was the first time he had seen it go to the City Council before coming to the Appeals Commission. APPEALS'COMMISSION'MEETING 'MARCH'26;'1985 " ' " " " " ".... " .' " ." PAGE 4 Mr. Clark stated that �n the past, there have been many lot splits approved for lots smaller than 75 feet without Appeals Commission approval, as long as it was recognized at a public hearing what the approval consisted of. If, in fact, the petitioner needs a setback variance, either front yard, side yard, or rear yard, then it was clear to him that the Appeals Commission must act. Mr. Clark stated what they needed to clear up was to either leave Item #2 in the code and not do what they had just done at this meeting, or take it out of the code and continue to do what they had just done. Ms. Gabel stated she felt the Planning Commission should also take a look at this, because there has alway$ been some confusion by the Planning Commission concerning lot splits. She firmly believed that if the City grants a lot split and the petitioner cannot build on the lot without variances, the petitioner's hardship is created by the City and the City has to grant the variances. Ms. Gabel stated that part of it was the idea that some pepple get lot splits and don't necessarily know what they are going to do with the lots. They do not have a plan, and she thought that was part of the reason for some of the confusion. Mr. Clark stated that could be true, but it could be made clear to the petitioner that he/she has to meet setback requirements unless he/she wants to come back to the Appeals Commission for a variance on either side ya4 front yard, or rear yard. Ms. Gabel stated she understood what the code was saying, but she had not been aware the code read this way, and she did not know if the Planning Commission members really realized it read this way. She felt the Planning Commission should be made aware of this process. The Appeals Commission members agreed and agreed to send this on to the Planning Commission so the Planning Commission can have a better understanding of what happens when they grant lot splits. ADJOUR14MENT: MOTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MARCH 26, 1985, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submi ted, yn a a Recording Secretary h Menkveld )J o 2-T- H I 2 cke V A�P�A�a t)k.%ve C, A RAW �60b O — �"' �RocKvi�vJ Zua 76,st fir'' ' �ExcEPr TNS 5 ►oo = OE j Z15, 70' 7a` m � z 9Cryn =' I _ To I l � AS�t-�a� Dawes 2 c�u2 6'4R4GEZn N 13zo ►.1�L( tU qT�c+� �F . Fen ince C NAY - 4S L; oaEL 10 Csu cz- - — — S' t� ASE 4. x'