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'