Loading...
VAR 94-23CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Vice -Chairperson Kuechle called the September 13, 1994, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Larry Kuechle, Ken Carol Beaulieu Diane Savage Vos, Cathy Smith, Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Tim Mack, Ground Round Restaurant, Inc. John Rice, Jr., 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 23, 1994, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the August 23, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST. #94-23. BY JOHN RICE, JR.: Pursuant to Section 205.07. 03. D. (2) . (c) . ( (3) ) of the City Code to reduce the side yard setback of an accessory structure which opens onto a side street from 25 feet to 19 feet on Lots 19 - 22, Block U, Riverview Heights, the same being 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the variance request is for an R-1 zoning district. The site is located at the corner of Riverview Terrace and Ely Street. There is a caveat in the R-1 section of the code that talks about the distance from an adjoining property's lot line if that adjoining property faces the side street. In this case, the adjoining property does face Ely which means the request is actually for a reduction from 30 feet to 19 feet on that side yard. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 13 1994 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated the original structure was built in 1959 and consisted of 1888 square feet with an attached garage and breezeway. In 1959, the requirement for a side yard setback was half of the distance of the front yard setback of the adjacent home. he adjacent a thish 19 feet for as a t he d setback original of structurewaely s 38 feet appropriate. Mr. Hickok stated this request is to consider a detached accessory building, 26 feet x 30 feet, which will bring the total lot coverage to 21%. To further clarify that section of the code that refers to that adjacent property, if the distance between the garage and the lot line between the two properties is less than 25 feet, then the setback must be 30 feet from the front of the structure to that side property line. The petitioner has asked for a variance to construct the garage 19 feet from the property line which is equal distance with the front of the existing garage. This site does not include topographic conditions or vegetation that would prohibit the petitioner from moving the garage back. The City has issued variances in the past for similar requests. Mr. Hickok stated staff does not thehave esteCstaffdation. If the recommends the Commission chooses to approve following stipulation: 1. A hard -surface drive of concrete or asphalt shall be installed to serve the detached garage. Ms. Smith asked if there were plans for street improvements on Ely Street. Mr. Hickok stated he was not aware of any plans but he believed there is a standard right-of-way width. The City does not see this as a high traffic corridor and improvements would likely be made within the existing right-of-way. Dr. vos stated the house to east determines the setback. This house is set back quite a distance and the garage is on the east side. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. Rice stated he wanted to have the garage even with theuse. They have patio doors and a deck, and the deck will join the garage. If the garage is put back, it blocks the windows from the kitchen and messes up the back yard. Dr. vos asked what the garage would be used for. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 3 Mr. Rice stated the garage would be used for storage for boats, etc. Their current garage is only 19 feet wide so it is hard to put two cars into that garage. Dr. Vos asked the petitioner if he had any problems with the stipulation. Mr. Rice stated he would provide a hard surface but he would like to have a one-year grace period. Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner had any reaction from the neighbor to the east. Mr. Rice stated he talked with the neighbor and he said that was fine with them. Mr. Kuechle asked if there would be two driveways. Mr. Rice stated yes. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:13 P.M. Dr. Vos stated it seemed the place was built in 1959 according to code. The petitioner is trying to keep the line of sight on the side yard. Anytime the side yard has a garage, it gets complex. It is possible that the petitioner could put the garage back into the middle of the back yard, but that did not seem practical. He did not see a reason to object to the request. He would vote to approve. Ms. Smith agreed. She would like to see the garage setback a bit because the street is narrow. The spirit of the code is being met. There are no problems with sight lines. As long as the neighbor to the east has no complaints, she would vote to approve. Ms. Beaulieu agreed since the 19 feet is existing with the garage and the house. The hardship is not extreme but she can understand why they would not want to put the garage back into the yard. Mr. Kuechle concurred. Although the code could be met, it would mean moving the garage to the center of the backyard. This would not do the site any good. He is concerned if the driveway was large enough but they will have two driveways, so he would vote in favor. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 4 MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approved Variance Request, VAR #94-23, by John Rice, Jr., to reduce the side yard setback of an accessory structure which opens onto a side street from 25 feet to 19 feet on Lots 19 - 22, Block U, Riverview Heights, the same being 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. A hard -surface drive of concrete or asphalt shall be installed to serve the detached garage by September 1, 1995. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #94-24, BY WILLIAM C. FORSTER CORPORATION•• Pursuant to Section 214.11.02.B of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum square footage of a sign from 80 square feet to 96 square feet on Lot 2, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, generally located at 5277 Central Avenue N.E. (Ground Round Restaurant) MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:17 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this request was being made by the Ground Round Restaurant generally located at Hwy. 65 and I-694 for approval to install a 96 square foot sign. The code allows a sign of 80 square feet and the existing sign is 120 square feet. In 1973, a sign variance was granted to allow the, Ground Round Restaurant to install a 96 square foot sign. Later, a reader board was added below the insignia consisting of 24 square feet. In 1992, that reader board was illuminated and a variance was required to make that modification. Mr. Hickok stated the approval remains in effect until the sign is altered in any way except for routine maintenance and change of messages; the supporting structure is replaced or remodeled; the face of the sign is remodeled; the sign becomes dilapidated or damaged; or when the name of the business being displayed changes. At this time, the supporting structures are being modified and the face of the sign is being replaced. This does represent a reduction from 120 square feet to 96 square feet. Also in the variance portion of the sign code, there are certain criteria that must be met as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or the intended use which do not APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 5 apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and district. In this same vicinity, Total Mart has an 80 square foot sign. There are no topographical conditions that would cause a need for additional sign dimensions over 80 square feet. B. If a variance is necessary for the preservation of enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district which is denied to the property in question. The restaurant is located in a heavily travelled intersection. Because of this, staff feels an 80 square foot sign would be visible and having an 80 square foot sign would not cause a severe hardship to this site. There are also signs in that area that exceed 80 square feet and even 96 square feet as requested. C. The strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Staff believes that an.80 square foot sign would be visible on the site and appropriate according to the sign code. D. The granting of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. It is a situation that the City has considered in the past and has granted a variance to 120 square feet. This does represent a reduction to 96 square feet and would not be deemed detrimental. Mr. Hickok stated staff has reviewed and approved other sign variances to exceed 80 square feet. These were approved prior to the current code requirements. Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. If it is the City's desire to bring properties back within the current sign code requirements, the time to do this is when the sign and supporting standards are being changed. Ms. Smith asked the size of the signs at the Kelly Inn and Twin City Federal properties. Mr. Hickok stated the Kelly Inn sign is less than 25 foot maximum height and less than the 80 square foot. It was not listed as having a variance in this area. The Twin City Federal sign may predate the standards in this area. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 6 Mr. Kuechle asked when the standards were changed. Mr. Hickok stated the sign code requirements were changed in about 1987. Mr. Mack, Ground Round Restaurants, Inc., stated he handles the renovations for the company. About one and a half years ago, they started a renovation program which includes signage. They have done approximately 150 stores where they have installed the same or similar sign. Locally, Richfield and Roseville have the same sign with a single pylon. This sign has been redesigned to use the existing structures and they have tried to scale down and compact the signs as much as possible. It does give the sign a smaller look even more so that the existing 120 square foot sign. It is very clean looking sign. It is backlit which softens the appearance. They have had many compliments. Dr. Vos asked if the distance from the ground level to the first reader board was higher than existing. Mr. Mack stated yes, basically everything gets closer together. He has just come into this area, has started doing surveys of the stores and deciding what to do,in that location. Dr. Vos asked if 96 square feet is adequate. Mr. Mack stated yes. Because the sign is backlit, it does a nicer job. The existing signs are starting to deteriorate. They can light just as bright but they do not look as nice. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Ms. Smith stated she would be inclined to vote for approval. We have had the issue come up a number of times. This is still a variance request. It is 16 feet greater than existing code requirements, but they are reducing and upgrading their existing sign. The other option is to leave it with a sign that may not be very nice for an extended period of time just to get the exposure. She would be inclined to vote for approval. Ms. Beaulieu stated she had no problem with going from 120 square feet to 96 square feet. The Appeals Commission approved a sign for Embers from 230 square feet to 120 square feet. She would be inclined to vote for approval. n a Dr. Vos stated it makes theraise ig the in the sense that you advantage to decrease the size and would vote yes. was approved in 1992 a variance approve. We have also granted bit more visible in the corner reader board. There is an put up the reader board. He Mr. Kuechle agreed. Ground Round request and it is hard now not to similar requests in the same area. seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve Variance by William C. Forster Corporation, to increase footage of a sign from 8o square feet to 96 2, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, at 5277 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Smith, Request, VAR #94-24, the maximum square square feet on Lot generally located Restaurant). UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY' VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE Mr. Hickok stated the request would be considered by the City Council at their October 3rd meeting. 3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planning Commission the City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON AppEALS DECLARED THE NOTION O NA CARRIED AND 8T3HEE SEPTEMBER EP TEMBER 13 , 1994, COMMISSION MEETING Respectfully submitted, ` ? Illi Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary