VAR 08.69TO MdU7 Shut HaM
�£� � :.iiY. -_c2k 5 .Y✓.4. 3a id 6�H'h R..9 Y. - 1
Cs13la BeLghtso lgmmmtgt
SUBJECT: ftblle&A��rI�+J': �efalm 7ha Ramal Of A229419; DATE: Apmet 229 21%9
FOLD'S
off Zwold:
t
PL EASE REPLYTO- --. SIGNED :I�-�'3
I m. V
SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY.
----------
r y
APPWATIO# TO THP BOARD 61? . APPEALS AND CITY CObNCIL
`OR SPECIAL, �1SE P1RMiT, �IARIANCE IN REQUIRLNS OF
CERTAIN ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
(Applicant to complete items 1, 2, 3) / g�j 7 q l d'
r
1. Name and Address of Applicant
2. Legal Description of Property (also general location, such as:"north..
east corner of 64th Avenue and 5th Street" or 6415 Fifth Street")
Jot
3. Describe the variance requested. (Attach Plat or Survey of Property
showing location of proposed building, etc., also adjoining properties
and -.ownership within 200' of said property.)
To jLg-,e,n , -- o f b tl, tjgo A2 e a
o✓p-4 CoA-e4.coF_
4. Comments by administrative official denying original request for building
permit or other permit. (To be completed by administrative official.
Appropriate ordinances and section of ordinances to be cited.)
7}
�✓E
- 2 -
5. Notice of Hearing appeared i Official Newspaper on the following
dates: o? 91 p
(must be at least onctlIO days before meeting -- copy of notice to 1
attached).
6. Board Members notified of meeting by e, 196 2
(List Members, Date Notified, and "Yes" o "No" for plans to attend
hearing).
s
Date
Plan to Attend
7. Person making appeal and the following property owners having property
within 200' notified:
Name
Date
Les OA)husoAJ a9l A s4zw Ajwwq&q&�
A OMALA FL& QaLB.
�Abu-FC; LumB� �o �cE C'eE EC u!
%QE OJC& kJAMA K . -J/-AQ. bL✓a C�
S�a4n1 /►tAT, 33 -66�L waV
J%ee,eI� LiagPS6N -c2s -bb`�sust}�
By Phone Notified by
or Mail (Initial)
1, oLct ,
8. The Following Board Members and interested parties were present at the
Hearing:
BOARD MEMBERS
- 3 -
OTHER PARTIES:
NAME
ADDRESS
9. Opinions and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEAS:
LU O i ®� k4 L)J UI i S d !mac �o i2 A �l 7' 7 � I ,� tfA � t F11LI
%rl[ eAiTif rI"I t. U Is APi G S�e-- fi9/A)M-T-s
10. For Above Recommendations
i TTS" i A-�
YY1�A')st4
11. Action by City Council and Date:
r Wkzw.,M iWwm�
Against Recommendations
,�kd �-
a
�-Yc'-r- tea
a, �) �j & �
I rry Pobpnatloai
CCITY OFFRJDLEY'"
)PU REARINOBEFORETHE
BOARD O .mEAL1O
TO WHOM J!A A CON
NOTICE 15 HERE (NEN THAT the
Hoard of Appeals of the ClW of Fridley
will meet Ito ttie Coapol Chambers of, the
City Hail at 7:90 p m. ou' Wednesdayy. Sep
Mbar 10, 190 to consider ,the (oIIowing
matteE: ,
A request for a "nee - of Sectio"
43 y3. to reduce the sidegard requirmp f
from 10feet to 7 Eeet toL the
comtntetlon of a dwelling, th o llv�g;
area over the garage, to be ]pealed on
Lot 4. Block 9, Edgewater OardeWit, the
sarhe being' 92 37th Wap N.E.. Frldleya'
Mioneaofa. IRegaeat by Donald Flelggle.'
4017 Polk Street N.E.. Minneapolis: Mtn-
nesota 38421.)
to- the"
iningabove to be beams with refer-
to
be heard
at this meetlag - DoNALD mr=L`$TADr,
I Chairman!
Hoard of Appeals I
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF APPEALS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley
will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday,
September 10, 1969 to consider the following matter:
A request for a variance of Section 45.23
to reduce the sideyard requirement from
10 feet to 7 feet to permit the construction
of a dwelling, with a living area over the
garage, to be located on Lot 4, Block 3,
Edgewater Garden's, the same being 32 -67th
Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by
Donald Fleigle, 4617 Polk Street N.E.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421•)
Anyone desiring.to be heard with reference to the above matter may
be heard at this meeting.
DONALD MITTELSTADT
CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF APPEALS
POLISH: August 27, 1969
1.
THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1969
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mittelstadt at 7:37 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mittelstadt, Minish, Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ahonen, O'Bannon
OTHERS PRESENT: Clarence Belisle -Building Inspector
MOTION by Minish to approve the minutes of the August 27, 1969
meeting as written.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Donald Fleigle was present to present the request.
(NOTE: Mr. Fleigle brought his house plans in to the Building
Inspection Department on June 18, 1969. The plans were checked
and a permit was issued at this time. On August 27, 1969, the
adjacent property owner, Mr. Doug Lumby, called the Building
Inspector about the position of this home on the lot. The
Building Inspector went out and checked the location, and noted
an oversight had been made in checking the plans. The plans that
were submitted showed a living area over the garage and according
to the City Code, this requires a 10 foot sideyard. The Inspection
Department in checking the plans did not notice the living area,
over the garage, and allowed the applicant to place his home, on
the lot, with a 7 foot sideyard as the City Code states an attached
garage may be 5 feet from the property line.
At the time that the Building Inspector noted the oversight,
he asked Mr. Fleigle to stop work on the home and to fill out an
application to appear before the Board of Appeals for a variance
of the sideyard requirement. Mr. Fleigle was very cooperative in
doing so.)
Mr. Fleigle explained his house plans to the Board and to the
audience. He said he had not planned on breaking any of the City
Codes and did not know that he was doing so, as the Building
Department had approved the plans. If the oversight had not been
made, he could have moved his home over 2 feet on the lot and
decreased the size(length) by 1 foot, which would have been in
line with all the requirements, but at this time the foundation
has been built. To correct the mistake the whole thing would
have to be torn out which would involve a sum of money (approx.
$2,000.00) and a great deal of time loss.
Minutes of the Board of Appeals September 10, 1969 Meeting Pale 2
Mr. Doug Lumby, 40 Rice Creek Way, asked the Board what the
requirements were on sideyards.
Mr. Harris explained to him, and the audience, what the requirements
were on sideyards and also the requirements on space between livable
and nonlivable structures.
Mr. Lumby felt the structure going up would decrease the resale value
of his home. His reason being the home would be 3 feet closer to
his than the City Code requires and also being it is a 13r, story home
it would look over his.
There -was then some discussion, between Mr. Fleigle, Mr, Lumby and
the Board on how Mr. Fleigle would landscape his lot se he wouldn't
be draining onto Mr. Lumby's land. The Building Inspector explained
the drainage pattern for this lot.
Mr. Lumby did state that he was not against the house but he was
concerned about his own property.
Mr. Bob Stuart, 17- 67th Way asked if this variance, if granted, set
a precedent in the neighborhood.
Chairman Mittelstadt stated that each case that comes before the
Board is treated individually and the Board's decisions are not
based upon what happened to other variances. The decisions are
based on what is presented at the meetings as to whether there
is a hardship involved or not. No decision would set a precedent
In a neighborhood.
Mr. Stuart explained that he was against the variance as it would
further cramp the neighborhood. He does have 2 empty lots next to
him and he wouldn't like them to ask for the same kind ctvariances.
Mr. John Mayer, 33-663!5 Way, stated that he felt it is the City's
problem as there was a gross oversight made on the part of the
City.
Mrs. Betty Blair, 40-661n Way said she felt the people at the meeting
were objecting more to the house than to the three foot variance.
She stated further that there are other 13ra story homes in the area
that overlook ramblers.
There was a discussion on the grade of the land in the area and
if turning the house around would lower the height of it at all.
Mr. Fleigle explained that his garage floor is 18 inches above the
center line of the street which is the minimum requirement of the
City Code. To turn the house any other way would raise the height
of the house even more than it is now.
Mr. Foster, 59 Rice Creek Way (Not within 200 feet) stated his only
Interest in this was the way it would affect the whole neighborhood.
He. felt that the City should bear the expense for having the whole
foundation torn out and then start all over again locating the
building correg�jy pn Vh9 lot according tq tJqg City Code.
Minutes of the Board of Appeals September 10, 1969 Meeting Pa&e
Chairman Mittelstadt explained to Mr. Dumby, Mr. Fleigle and the
audience what procedures they could follow if and when they did
not agree with the Board of Appeals ruling on the variance.
MOTION by Minish to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unan;lmously.
MOTION by Minish to grant the variance for the following reason
and with the following stipulation:
1. There definitely is a hardship in the fact that the City is
the one that made the mistake and not the Fleigles and in so
far as the foundation is already in and to remove this
foundation and to start over again would take a fairly large
amount of money (which Mr. Minish felt should be paid by the
City if the variance is denied by the Council for some reason)
and would also involve a great deal of lost time.
2. The stipulation imposed on this variance is that the variance
would not be in effect and the work could not be resumed until
such time as the Council has had a chance to review the Board's
minutes of this meeting and to state their recommendation.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stuart asked the Board what their decision would have been
if the foundation would not have been in and complete.
The Board stated that they would probably have voted against the
variance.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 by Chairman Mittelstadt.
Respectfully submitted,
na,w
MARY HINqF
Secretary
THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10. 1969
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mittelstadt at 7:37 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mittelstadt, Minish, Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ahonen, OtBannon
OTHERS PRESENT: Clarence Belisle -Building Inspector
MOTION by Minish to approve the minutes of the August 27, 1969
meeting as written.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION L5.23 TO REDUCE THE SIDEYA
REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO 7 FEET TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION
A DWELLING WITH A LIVING AREA OVER THE GARAGE TO 999 LOCA D
LOT BLOCK3. EDGEWATER GA EN'S, THE SAME BEING 2- TH AY
N.E. FRIDLEYg MINNESOTA® fREQUEST BY DONALD FL GL 1 OL
STREET N.E. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 21.
Mr. Donald Fleigle was present to present the request.
(NOTE: Mr. Fleigle brought his house plans in to the Building
Inspection Department on June 18, 1969. The plans were checked
and a permit was issued at this time. On August 27, 1969, the
adjacent property owner, Mr. Doug Lumby, called the Building
Inspector about the position of this home on the lot. The
Building Inspector went out and checked the location, and noted
an oversight had been made in checking the plans. The plans that
were submitted showed a living area over the garage and according
to the City Code, this requires a 10 foot sideyard. The Inspection
Department in checking the plans did not notice the living area,
over the garage, and allowed the applicant to place his home, on
the lot, with a 7 foot sideyard as the City Code states an attached
garage may be 5 feet from the property line.
At the time that the Building Inspector noted the oversight,
he asked Mr. Fleigle to stop work on the home and to fill out an
application to appear before the Board otI Appeals for a variance
of the sideyard requirement. Mr. Fleigle was very cooperative in
doing so.)
Mr. Fleigle explained his house plans to the Board and to the
audience. He said he had not planned on breaking any of the City
Codes and did not know that he was doing so, as the Building
Department had approved the plans. If the oversight had not been
made, he could have moved his home over 2 feet on the lot and
decreased the size(length) by 1 foot, which would have been in
line with all the requirements, but at this time the foundation
has been built. To correct the mistake the whole thing would
have to be torn out which would involve a sum of money (approx.
$2,000.00) and a great deal of time loss.
Minutes of the Board of Appeals September 10, 1969 Meeting Page 2
Mr. Doug Lumby, 40 Rice Creek Way, asked the Board what the
requirements were on sideyards.
Mr. Harris explained to him, and the audience, what the requirements
were on sideyards and also the requirements on space between livable
and nonlivable structures.
Mr. Lumby felt the structure going up would decrease the resale value
of his home. His reason being the home would be 3 feet closer to
his than the City Code requires and also being it is a 11,s story home
it would look over his.
There -was then some discussion, between Mr. Fleigle, Mr. Lumby and
the Board on how Mr. Fleigle would landscape his lot se he wouldn't
be draining onto Mr. Lumby's land. The Building Inspector explained
the drainage pattern for this lot.
Mr. Lumby did state that he was not against the house but he was
concerned about his own property.
Mr. Bob Stuart, 17- 67th Way asked if this variance, if granted, set
a precedent in the neighborhood.
Chairman Mittelstadt stated that each case that comes before the
Board is treated individually and the Board's decisions are not
based upon what happened to other va.riances. The decisions are
based on what is presented at the meetings as to whether there
is a hardship involved or not. No decision would set a precedent
in a neighborhood.
Mr. Stuart explained that he was against the variance as it would
further cramp the neighborhood. He does have 2 empty lots next to
him and he wouldn't like them to ask for the same kind ct variances.
Mr. John Mayer, 33-66k Way, stated that he felt it is the City's
problem as there was a gross oversight made on the part of the
City.
Mrs. Betty Blair, 40-66k Way said she felt the people at the meeting
were objecting more to the house than to the three foot variance.
She stated further that there are other 1&A story homes in the area
that overlook ramblers.
There was a discussion on the grade of the land in the area and
if turning the house around would lower the height of it at all.
Mr. Fleigle explained that his garage floor is 18 inches above the
center line of the street which is the minimum requirement of the
City Code. To turn the house any other way would raise the height
of the house even more than it is now.
Mr. Foster, 59 Rice Creek Way (Not within 200 feet) stated his only
interest in this was the way it would affect the whole neighborhood.
He. felt that the City should bear the expense for having the whole
foundation torn out and then start all over again locating the
building corregtly pq tho lot according t9 t110 City Code.
Minutes of the Board of Appeals September 10, 1969 Meeting Pale
Chairman Mittelstadt explained to Mr. Lumby, Mr. Fleigle and the
audience what procedures they could follow if and when they did
not agree with the Board of Appeals ruling on the variance.
MOTION by Minish to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Minish to grant the variance for the following reason
and with the following stipulation:
1. There definitely is a hardship in the fact that the City is
the one that made the mistake and not the Fleigles and in so
far as the foundation is already in and to remove this
foundation and to start over again would take a fairly large
amount of money (which Mr. Minish felt should be paid by the
City if the variance is denied by the Council for some reason)
and would also involve a great deal of lost time.
2. The stipulation imposed on this variance is that the variance
would not be in effect and the work could not be resumed until
such time as the Council has had a chance to review the Board's
minutes of this meeting and to state their recommendation.
Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stuart asked the Board what their decision would have been
if the foundation would not have been in and complete.
The Board stated that they would probably have voted against the
variance.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 by Chairman Mittelstadt.
Respectfully submitted,
n ,,)
MARY H IN
Secretary