Loading...
09/09/1992 ii 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 Public Copy Planning Commission 3 City of Fridley AGENDA ************* PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 � . ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 12, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-09, BY NANCY AND PATRICK THOMPSON: Per Section 205. 07.O1.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet, on Lot 9, Block 3, Shorewood, generally located at 851 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1992 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1992 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the August 12 , 1992 , Planning Commission meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage) , Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Robert Liska, 424 Longfellow St. N.E. Boyd & Adelia Maine, 4.23 - 79th Ave. N.E. Ralph & Jean Overlie, 433 - 79th Way N.E. John & Joan Rainville, 3257 Penn Ave. No. W. R. & Lillian Radel, 6655 Anoka St. N.E. Kevin Cyrus, 6680 Anoka St. N.E. APPROVAL OF JULY 22 , 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the July 22, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-08, BY ROBERT LISKA: Per Section 205. 07 . 01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet, on Lots 15-18, Block 1, Spring Brook Park, generally located at 424 Longfellow Street N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7 :36 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is generally located west of East River Road and adjacent to Spring Brook Place. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the surrounding properties. The proposal is for a special use permit to allow a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 2 second accessory building over 240 sq. ft. The petitioner currently has an attached two-car garage, and he is proposing to construct a 24 ft. by 40 ft. four-car garage. The petitioner has a collection of antique cars and restores them as a hobby. The proposed garage will be of frame construction similar to the existing dwelling unit and existing attached garage. By Code, the proposed accessory structure cannot exceed 14 feet in height. As proposed, the accessory structure meets the setback requirements as required by Code and does not adversely impact the maximum lot coverage or maximum square footage of permitted accessory buildings. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will not be allowed to conduct a home occupation out of the accessory structure as it is prohibited under Section 205. 03 .34 of the Zoning Code. The petitioner will also be required to provide a hard surface driveway to the accessory structure. Ms. McPherson staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be compatible with the • existing dwelling unit and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2 . The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by September 1, 1993 . 3 . The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation as per Section 205.03 . 34 of the Zoning Code. 4 . The petitioner shall not repair automobiles for profit. 5. There shall be no painting of automobiles in the accessory structure. 6. There shall be no storage of automobiles on the property or in the accessory structure which are not registered to the property owner. 7 . If conditions #3-#6 are violated, the City reserves the right to terminate the special use permit. The petitioner, his heirs, and assigns understand that termination of the special use permit will require removal of the accessory structure. Mr. Betzold asked if this activity is currently being conducted at this site. Ms. McPherson stated that she spoke with the petitioner prior to writing the staff report, and he indicated that he has access to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 3 a professional auto body painting facility, and all his auto body repair and painting is conducted at that facility. Stipulation #7 is to alert the petitioner that such an activity would not be permitted under the special use permit. The petitioner is proposing to use the new structure for storing the restored vehicles; however, the petitioner has indicated that he does do some structural work and also reassembles the engines and trans- missions and mechanical parts in his garage. Mr. Betzold asked the petitioner if he is planning to do anything different at his residence if this structure is built than he is presently doing. Mr. Robert Liska stated he will not be doing anything different. He stated he presently restores cars. He does all the mechanical work and fabrication. He is a machinist by trade so he fabricates the cars, but he does all the painting and body work at a separate facility. Mr. Betzold asked if the petitioner uses drills and sanders at the present time. He is concerned about any noise which might be emanating into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Liska stated he does not use any drills or sanders for body work. He has owned the house for almost seven years, and he has restored three cars. He is not aware of any complaints from the neighbors about noise. He does not make any loud noises beyond a reasonable time. He is very concerned about his neighbors. Mr. Liska stated he owns five cars at the present time. He wants to store them all inside and out of sight.. He wants to keep the property clean and keep his property value up. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner would be using any bright security lights. Mr. Liska stated he did not intend to have any outside security lights. Mr. Betzold stated that if the . City started receiving any complaints about noise and excessive activity, can that be reviewed by other parts of the City Code? Even if there is no stipulation and noise became an issue, could that be grounds for revocation of the special use permit? Ms. McPherson stated that is correct. There are noise and nuisance codes which set specific decibels at specific times for the operation of certain types of equipment which create noise. If the activity became a nuisance and staff could not work with the petitioner/property owner to rectify the situation, then she believed there could be cause for revocation of the special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 4 Mr. Betzold stated wondered if it would be necessary to put in a stipulation to comply with the code when it is already covered by City Code. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission could choose to do that. Mr. Ralph Overlie, 433 - 79th Way N.E. , stated his property backs up to the proposed building. At the present time, the petitioner has two old junk cars in the back yard. They do not look like collectible cars. He stated he did not see the need for the petitioner to construct a building of this size when he already has an attached two-garage. With the proposed garage, he would have six bays. He stated the petitioner is not just doing this for a hobby; he is in the business of restoring cars. There are all kinds of old service stations that the petitioner could lease if he wanted to get into the business. A person cannot work on cars without making a lot of noise. If he has a hoist, a hoist requires a compressor, and compressors make a lot of noise. The petitioner_ is proposing to expand a small operation into a big operation in a nice residential neighborhood, and it should not be allowed. He stated they are planning to put $8, 000 of landscaping into their property, and he hates to see the neighborhood deteriorate. He is • completely opposed to this proposal. Mr. Overlie stated that he and his wife have lived at this residence for six years. At the end of Jefferson toward the river, there is a property that continually has 4-6 junk cars in the front yard. The City has never done anything about it. If Fridley is going to- improve and maintain its image, it cannot be considering this proposal which amounts to putting a commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood. Frankly, some of his neighbors have items stored in their yards that should not be allowed either, and he did not know what Fridley is doing about this type of situation. Mr. Boyd Maine, 423 - 79th Way N.E. , stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and has known Mr. Liska for six years. He would rather have Mr. Liska build another garage than to have the cars sitting out in the yard. He stated he has never heard any noise coming from Mr. Liska ' s residence. Ms. Overlie stated she has heard noise on Sunday afternoons. Mr. Betzold stated that if the special use permit is denied, what are the petitioner' s plans? What about the two cars stored in the back yard? Mr. Liska stated that if the special use permit is denied, he would still have his hobby but with no additional garage space. He would probably have to sell the two cars that are stored outside now. He was planning to restore those two cars. He stated he is not in the business of restoring cars and selling them. He plans to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12 , 1992 PAGE 5 restore these cars and store them, and that is the reason for building the proposed garage. Ms. Sherek stated Mr. Overlie mentioned a hoist and a compressor. Would the petitioner be operating a hoist, a compressor, or any of that type of equipment in the garage? Mr. Liska stated he would not. Most of his restoration work is done in the attached two car garage. The proposed four-car garage is for storage. He also stated that he will not be working on other people's cars. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is a large piece of property which can easily handle this size garage. The lot coverage would still be quite low. The proposed building gives the petitioner the option of storing the vehicles inside rather than outside. He stated he would be in favor of adding a stipulation that there is to be no outside storage of vehicles even though the Code already covers that. Mr. Betzold stated he is not so sure that approving a special use permit for a four-car garage for the purpose of storing vehicles inside rather than outside is justification for granting the special use permit in the first place. He believed Mr. Overlie was making a good point that approving a special use permit for an additional four garage spaces for a total of six garage spaces to do work, whether or not it is a hobby, may not be appropriate in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Saba stated stipulations #4 and #5 that there shall be no repair of automobiles for profit or painting of automobiles in the accessory structure are difficult to enforce. It is good that the petitioner plans to store his vehicles inside, but he is concerned that the petitioner might purchase more vehicles and have more vehicles stored outside, even though it is prohibited. He did agree with Mr. Kuechle that the lot is certainly large enough for the additional garage. Mr. Sielaff stated he did not have any strong objection to this special use permit, because the petitioner does own a large lot. If the petitioner wishes to construct a four-car garage on it, as long as he meets all the code requirements and there are no problems with noise, he did not have any reason to vote against the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 6 Ms. Sherek stated that a special use permit was granted about three years ago for a large garage for the storage of cars, and that has proved to be an asset for the neighbors and for the City. Her biggest concern is future owners and the possibility of 'a repair garage being operated some time in the future. She would like to see a stipulation that if the special use permit is granted that the special use permit be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a building permit so that future property owners will be aware of the special use permit and the restrictions placed on it. Ms. McPherson stated she did not believe a stipulation is needed. It is the City's responsibility for recording any action against the property. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the special use permit, staff will follow through on that direction. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #92-08, by Robert Liska, per Section 205. 07 . 01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet, on Lots 15-18, Block 1, Spring Brook Park, generally located at 424 Longfellow Street N.E. , with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be compatible with the existing dwelling unit and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2 . The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by September 1, 1993 . 3 . The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation as per Section 205. 03 . 34 of the Zoning Code. 4 . The petitioner shall not repair automobiles for profit. 5. There shall be no painting of automobiles in the accessory structure. 6. There shall be no storage of automobiles on the property or in the accessory structure which are not registered to the property owner. 7 . All cars and car parts undergoing or awaiting restoration must be stored inside. 8 . If stipulations #3-#6 or any other provisions of the City Code are violated, the City reserves the right to terminate the special use PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 7 permit. The petitioner, his heirs, and assigns understand that termination of the special use permit will require removal of the accessory structure. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September 8, 1992 . 2 . CONSIDERATION OF VACATION REQUEST, SAV #92-02 , BY JOHN RAINVILLE: To vacate that part of a public street dedication described as follows: Commencing at the center line of Anoka Street on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13 , Township 30, Range 24 ; thence North 88 degrees 34 minutes west, a distance of 29. 66 feet to the point of beginning. Thence south 30. 01 feet; thence North 37 degrees 0 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 38. 31 feet; thence East to the point of beginning. Generally located at 67th Avenue and Anoka Street. Ms. McPherson stated this vacation request is to vacate a portion of an existing public right-of-way located at the end of Anoka Street and adjacent to Rice Creek Park. The property is zoned R- 1, Single Family. This request is in conjunction with a second request for a variance which was reviewed and tabled by the Appeals Commission on July 21 and will be reviewed again on August 18, 1992 . The variance request is to reduce the front yard and side yard setbacks on this lot to allow the construction of a single family dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated the lot is located at the end of Anoka Street. It is currently heavily wooded, vacant, and has some very steep topography. The petitioner is proposing the variance in order to construct the structure on the flattest part of the property. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed vacation request deals with a small triangle area in the northeast corner of the lot. When the lot was platted in 1963 , in addition to the cul-de-sac right-of- way adjacent to the subject property, this particular triangle was dedicated as part of an octagon-shaped right-of-way to provide some type of access into the Anoka County park property. Currently located in this area of the property is a footpath which leads to the Anoka County park facility. The petitioner assisted her in locating the primary and secondary pathways which come off the Anoka Street cul-de-sac and go down into the Anoka County park facility. Ms. McPherson stated that due to the topography in this general vicinity and the fact that the property north of the subject • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 8 property is Anoka County park property, construction of a public road in this area would not be practically feasible. Staff is recommending that the vacation request be approved by the City only if the variance request is also approved. If the variance request is denied, there is really no reason for the vacation request to be approved. The reason for the vacation request is to provide additional buildable area for the proposed single family dwelling. Mr. Betzold asked if it would be desirable or necessary to save any easement for public access to the park property. Ms. McPherson stated that is an option for the City, however, there is public right-of-way directly to the east where the secondary path is located. Mr. John Rainville stated he is . asking for the vacation of one corner of the triangular piece of land. The path does go down to the Creek in that area, but there is ample land available to the east for access to the Creek. He did not believe he would be encroaching on anyone' s opportunity to develop the park land further. Mr. Rainville stated he has designed a house that he believes will work on this lot. He is willing to work with the' City on the size and placement of the house and the garage. He would take care of any erosion problems. He could guarantee the City that he will not use treated timbers or creosote-treated timbers. He would use a cedar, redwood, or masonry product. Moving the house back to where the deck is proposed would probably mean the removal of some hardwood trees. He works for the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Department, and he is opposed to cutting down quality trees. Mr. Kevin Cyrus, 6680 Anoka Street, stated that the primary and secondary path merge midway down the slope. The. secondary path is quite steep, and, if the vacation is approved, the Creek will be virtually inaccessible. Mr. Radel, 6655 Anoka Street, stated there is very little flat land on this property and it is all sand. There is no way that erosion can be prevented. The petitioner should be required to follow City Code like everyone else. Mr. Rainville stated that if the size of the house is reduced, then he would like to put up a fence in that area to give him some security from the traffic to and from the Creek. If the house size is reduced, then an option might be an easement and the City maintaining the right-of-way. Right now, the primary path is the path of least resistance. It is already on his property, so access will automatically get shifted over to the secondary path. There is adequate land east of his property for access. The two paths join within 20-25 feet of the curb line. a � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 9 Mr. Kuechle stated he is in favor of recommending approval of the vacation request. Even though the primary path might be better, it is on the petitioner's property and, therefore, people are trespassing on at least a portion of his property. With the street right-of-way, there is still more than adequate access to the park land. If the vacation makes it easier to build on that lot, the City can well afford to give up that small portion of land. Mr. Sielaff stated he did not object to the vacation. He had been concerned about some safety issues if the primary path is less steep than the secondary path, but there is a safety issue anyway where the paths converge on the way down to the Creek. He would vote in favor of the vacation request. Mr. Saba agreed. He stated they should give the petitioner the opportunity to try to build on this property. Mr. Betzold stated he also did not have any objection to the vacation. This is a fairly minimal area. He wanted to stress to the petitioner and the neighbors that anything discussed at this meeting by the Planning Commission is not in any way to suggest or influence the Appeals Commission and the City Council in their review and action regarding the variance request. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of vacation request, SAV #92-03 , by John Rainville, to vacate that part of a public street dedication described as follows: Commencing at the center line of Anoka Street on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13 , Township 30, Range 24 ; thence North 88 degrees 34 minutes west, a distance of 29. 66 feet to the point of beginning. Thence south 30. 01 feet; thence North 37 degrees 0 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 38. 31 feet; thence East to the point of beginning. Generally located at 67th Avenue and Anoka Street, with the following stipulation: 1. Variance request, VAR #92-16, shall be approved. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission will re-review the variance request on August 18 . The City Council will hold a public hearing on the vacation request in about 4-6 weeks. She stated that when she gets the specific dates of the Council meetings, the neighbors will be notified. 3 . RECEIVE JULY 9, 1992 , HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the July 9, 1992 , Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 12, 1992 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE JULY 21, 1992 , APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba„ to receive the July 21, 1992 , Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JULY 21, 1992 , ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the July 21, 1992, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE JUNE 1, 1992 , PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the June 1, 1992 , Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried unanimously and the August 12 , , 1992 , Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 p.m. Res ctfully sub tted, Saba Rec rding Secretary A AA S I G N — IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, August 12, 1992 Name Address/Business 3a 5- 7 flA n. CU K Y!lJ . S S `1/7474100.A,;,S0 � �fz Loy t. VA- Jov/f) Art9Izza3 A E y.?_3 7, ; /P_ .Z) etail & �-� y �.L-Q c- , L.( q �c ( ' r 1 ' Gu� 6 cis' A/V0 K A- sr— peq d ley -�� Viig4i44 i itgh;je . �,. • r.w �'C= STAFF REPORT E-- Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : September 9, 1992 City Council Date REQUEST Permit Number SP #92-09 Applicant Nancy and Patrick Thompson Proposed To allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet Request Location 851 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. SITE DATA Size 10,275 square feet Density Present Zoning R-1, Single Family Dwelling Present Land Use(s) Single family Adjacent R-1, Single Family Dwelling to the North, South, East, and Zoning West Adjacent Land Use(s) Single family Utilities N/A Park Dedication N/A . Watershed District Rice Creek ANALYSIS Financial Implications Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan Compatibility with.Adjacent Zoning and Uses Environmental Considerations RECOMMENDATION Staff Approval with stipulations Appeals Commission Planning Commission Author MM/dn • SP #92-09 ' Nancy and Patrick Thompson THIS IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS r 7 �O R. �� _ THEY APPEAR IN THE A COUNTY OFFICES AFFECTING THEE AREA SHOWN. THIS DRAWING 15 TO BE USED ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN- TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN. ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. • FRIDLEY 539/4 • l / 4 I ® j I EW pRN€R SIC./I -.4,19,;6 1 a. • r,. --g-,.- STREE a - — - sr 5 0. `, ro •2d d' L"T L• W 0-1 1 r ' ' 1- _ 1 t -!= M.t 2'•• 9 3 a r.. z1. j..hr<i ., i 1 d a YO./1_ 0. . BENNETT DRIVE B/ri I f 1 1 • ,gyp,, ::.p•J, S, F'-'!'.• ¢!'•1"N N=lila 2Lf' /�f.a :._M % tyfl ,,:M ritimiz isripm -j - -^ 4.1 e`M,,y le - + ? 0' A e In >>,. r, ga�: roirurt.. is-„, ! e' 3 �i' : / z "n e t•t. Z,fl„ „t", ' t',,v OCE � ��ta '1` ?l (i. �y w) • i tl .. W K�4 i 'f�' e il� A +� l raVf, AI; a/ a( , ,r L a. wail gapc , zm r Ma�AVENUE , ' N.E.63 R 0 •• 9 , r i', 7f3 I .IA . r , re) •? x, L� R nr B'9 (d e tF) I# LA to pa ( co 0 r , z _ min � a = a t rta v �s . - z , . , , a • ! •T N' 0 >" f . 15r• 14: rf .^^}L' \a-7di -N.._E ,.,` (1)' t. :: ' a // wV. `• l* ' 7 K s eae z I 7y r /_, ' � . ' ', --',-------,-1,, ' . ,,,,,:k ,, ,-/.. -,,--.7, -,/., ' \,. - 0 .,' . 411poi 0 - • ,,A 7,7—4-----. .., -,1 . 1 ,N , • 7/1""'7 2---<:"--- -1"..,;,-..• , i '' -: -) 'w..r:'''. • . ,* L ) • I t lr'` l r .a / ,. . .rw: nl , - ' I ' / G) I s MC t , 1 4-40 • off1 .J zu�, r ,, Y'' � ;/ ,; , t r I n /, ilk O . ,., ,t,1 J e1 z _ ;•r / ;Qzlr�/ L !r r ` °cns L i/ // I,1,y,,, , r , � �� r z v. I Ir, Tom" r. �� R .. ,, , � et I •/ / ) ,i1.. A,',,' fn I cn c• ,Z.\ y / ,: I :y ,z 6� j- 0 I�i fe /;..gyp,e 'i ' / 1, ' r ',1 I I . 1 I•• 'A : I`0 .r , < 4 fllEi/bll�" :01. rR a ....,_... SECORNER ,.a 1 I, /M.C./O - SEC./4 +-. 43 44 z LOCATION MAP SP #92-09 Nancy and Patrick Thompson • • ,®m®�e 4 f - �,�'� -_ - _ _i. - i . .. S118 - min ;-- raga --.,�� I —W �•• 42 NQ88 = pi gg-- = z-4" 1 c 3 • , • EZZIA a! s .3 4iimi •.`N. 13 V 64 N46./F :••fir.• z ei®Q // • a /0 ' 11111 --3 hi '"���l/' 3 -%5 ♦♦♦. ►MI S' 9 ' 111/1141 , 8 , / ,---• .41.4 i,„:,.:..0.411-111. 6A Ar; 4^T .' , 40 Y • # 4 ? m a! HER , I:•:.:.::::.� 7 . ii 4 r4 .Zia . . '7 7-1•4-------i• •••••• ' P•-41...:•,:,&•:•:•: FRIDLEY j7� -- r—,---- '..r 1....t 1-.4 4••••••••• _ _.i SCHOOL ` 4• • "' •• /lOkop • , '' '1J2.,7/ - . • St*amps I�..♦ ♦♦4,♦1r1 v �♦♦♦�♦♦♦41`♦• �� kv0 ►♦ ►� - 43I W ES ' / • �j / .-. , -.d jr ' / r / 4(1 FRIDLEY R E i / ; FMr.., • e HIGH All0 0 / 7 ``s QE SCHOOL / f -..iiri- L. AK r /. IlltAk/4‘; T‘jrC. . Al 11 i>01\ • • e 59TH. AVE. oIIHII4 •• i 4 92 \*C1-8 \ 7-1 2 w MARIGOLD TERRACE b -• ,\ 3D (.4. 3 i tiling/II Ilefr .t l'? t" , 3 37 If JP - /1/, 4/. // j3 7 J )' '� O OZi 4 ,7 /t /s /3 /1 a /a 9 I i �l S� d fwvg4syys/4 /7 li /2 24 2/ 22 ik ,� / i t IA `' 1" 58 TH. 4,0 ; co /.. 41 At 1 'IT 4 ZONING MAP • Staff Report SP #92-09, by Nancy and Patrick Thompson Page 2 • Request The petitioners request that a special use permit be granted to allow construction of a detached accessory structure over 240 square feet. The request is for Lot 9, Block 3 , Shorewood Addition, the same being 851 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Site Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached single car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all adjacent properties. • Analysis The petitioner is proposing to locate the detached accessory structure in the northeast portion of the subject parcel. The structure is 22 ' x 24 ' (528 square feet) and is proposed to be used for parking of family cars. The proposed location of the second accessory structure is well within the required setbacks for detached accessory structures. The accessory structure may not exceed 14 feet in height, and may not be used for the conduct of a home occupation as defined in Section 205. 03 . 34 of the Fridley Zoning Code. In addition, the petitioner will be required to provide a hardsurface driveway three feet from the side lot line. The request as proposed will not adversely impact the lot coverage or adjacent properties. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet, with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 2 . The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by August 1, 1993 . 3. The accessory structure may not exceed 14 feet in height. 4 . The accessory structure may not be used to conduct a home occupation as defined in Section 205. 03 . 34 of the Fridley Zoning Code. • ` SP 1/92-09 Nancy and Patrick Thompson T N ` k.r 1 i fro Pose cl . . . .ta .'- ' . :..._� --Defach.e.d_i--. .._... .... _:.._Ga ea I•e ••.. , L r it m --- - - -- r . . .-•,sue 1,-. ...:_-..... - _ • ji I V ^,E- •l 7' y E- 3 S --, • ara9e Y:. a� �-- -._ • t. r. - 1 1 y • i — • =•.r 4 sa Mood' • � I , :#ra11ce,Drive • _C- 1% . .75! SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 9, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #92- 09, by Nancy and Patrick Thompson, per Section 205.07. 01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet, on Lot 9, . Block 3, Shorewood, generally located at 851 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than September 2, 1992. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571-3450. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: August 25, 1992 September 1, 1992 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. EX FRIDLEY,MN 55432 — (612)571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION-site plan required for submittal; see attached Address: '5( W. Moore. l-.it D r F r t d l e,' /4h) 554 3 Property Identification Number(PIN) it? /4 30 A L H ©0 3!0>: Legal description: L o f 9 I o c k 3 S h o r e wt.,ad Lot Block 3 Tract/Addition Sh o re woo d Current zoning: Ai E S /15 f d Square footage/acreage Lo t 5,zc /3 71 x 75' Reason for special use permit: B r....t I J a.. did qct a�^e ,w° b Q.c k 1' a r ci Section of City Code: Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No )C If yes, which city? If yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract Purchasers:] Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME jV�Ga.-vv , (,u .., 4, T ti o r,-, ,s a ADDRESS $51 ltJ, MB© re La D retie_ F r i ci / 1`l N) 55 I ? a DAYTIME PHONE S 7 a-71)9 5-- SIGNATURE l%i DATE 814 192 ', A PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME m (2b o V.-P ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATURE 7q1 � � -.-- DATE Fee: $200.00 $100.00 for residential 2nd accessory buildings Permit SP# A s Re eipt# yy1/3 Application received by: V ' Vikeiev �(l� Scheduled Planning Commission date: - 9 19 9 "7--- Scheduled City Council date: Planning 8/21/92 SP 1192-09 Nancy and Patrick Thompson MAILING LIST Council Nancy and Patrick Thompson Stephen Wontor City Council'Members 851 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 6206 Carol Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Comm. Chair Gary Moon Winton Knapton 6231 Carol Drive N.E. 6200 Carol Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 James Skurich Herbert Halverson 6221 Carol Drive N.E. 6190 Carol Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kathleen Dorr Loyd Eggerth 6211 Carol Drive N.E. 6180 Carol Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Woodrow Lubanski Roland Zeller 6201 Carol Drive N.E. 6170 Carol Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Beckstrom James Sampson 831 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 880 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. • Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Carole Marx Frank Frischmon 841 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 870 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 James Chandonnet Robert Metcalf 861 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 860 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Hammer Delmar Kingsriter 871 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 850 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Dean Myking Charles Hayes 881 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. 840 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Hanson Harold Unglaub 6220 Carol Drive N.E. 830 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Timothy Johnson Earl Hoyne 6212 Carol Drive N.E. 820 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432