The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR11-02 III Ili C,IIYOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432 (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/TTY(763)572-3534 October 24, 2011 Wayne Dahl, DC 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 Dear Mr. Dahl: On Monday,October 24, 2011, the Fridley City Council officially denied all five variances that are part of Variance Request,VAR#11-02, for your property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. Those variances are: 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 ft.to 78 ft. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft.to 11 ft. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a 1St accessory structure from 1,000 sq.ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft.to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. The fifth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. The findings of fact for denial of all five variances are as follows: • No practical difficulties exist on the site that would warrant further impacts to the ordinary high water mark setback and bluff setback. • No practical difficulties exist on the site that would warrant an accessory structure to be larger than the City code would require. • Impacts to the Natural Resources defined in the code and Comprehensive Plan-Mississippi River and Manomin Park • Impacts to the bluff vegetation and natural habitat • Impacts to the view of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way. • Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property which wouldn't require variances. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3590. Since ott Hicko , AIC community Development Director �, � � �. ��.�. �.�_..�... ..�r. .,�. �/ 11{��/1�+',c?1`�[�1` Community Development Department City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley MN 55432 763.572.3592 Fax: 763.571.1287 www.ci.fridley.mn.us VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential �_ CommercialflndustrialjMulti-Family Signs Property Information Address: / �% /-%��'Z �s� ca �.! � r Iz�L�,,,�c� �'tZt t� � � 1v1�� S`S"�f.� �. Anoka County Property Identification Number (PIN #): rS'-�C� - a�-/ �--vCSS'7 Legal Description: ��t-� t� /� L�c_!� �� S' �o,�•t�tfcc2sT l�ld� c�,�„c Current Zoning: �--/ Square footage of ParceL• �. �,S'm�r' Reason for Variance (one sentence summary, please attached full description) �Gc<G.l� /r/E �v G'.��u�� j2E/'G� ��l� � �CCSr•,t�� G�t�G,E Fee/Property Owner Information (as it appears on property title) **Fee owner must sign this form prior to processing Name (please print}: Lv ,�4 �i�c.! � D/�e-� �-i /� G Mailing address: / 7`? l�`��z�i ��t! G�'2c-Lg City: �'rz-r�L�y State: �/�� Zip code: �'Y,3�. Daytime Phone; � i�; -�7�� . 0 5'// Fax Number: Cell Phone: �l�. -?�C�-- �%!f E-mail address: 4� E' �)L% ��S� � co� � Signature/ � Petitioner Information ? Company Name (please print): ��,� �,✓y �1�1�.Q/ • Contact Person's Name (please print}: Mailing address: City: Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: Signature/Date: �_� State: Zip code: Fax Number: E-mail address: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fees $500 - R-1, Single Family Residential � $1,400 - Commercial/Indus ri �ulti-Family Residentia Application Number: t !' Receipt #: � Application Date: I � 15 Day Apptication Com let Notification qate; Scheduled Appeals Commission Ddte: F fi Scheduled City Coy�ncij Date: . , , , , . , � 60 Day Date: _ 60 Day Extension ,4,. - •�r '�v r�/+ I A4' � �,._ . � _ ri , !r .A uc — . Randy . K�.r''�, :_ _ `; 'vc;. �07':� �ussell '. Kurin _ _. �a '�,F;13 ��.�'r' H ��. n� ,IP , �" ._ C� W � � Ary �� 0 � 0 ri � r � a � W O b 0 � r� � W � ^ c LL_ � V / � V 1 �4 W V 1 � W � Z W � � � , 'v � � �� v �� , . �� 1 � ' ? �U SGALE iN rEET ri�n�r,rnur�: useci: �op nu'. ✓dranc u; 18� t{artman Circle �- evc,. �r,. 83� 8a� �N C� .[��, y_�l(� it� of ,-�'cley BMj • ��RO�"+ f ��FE �,�ONUMc�V i� �OUf�U O CON�2r=�� ?�10f�dUMENT FOUND – ;:XI.`�-'.f�i':� SFCT E! `t=`JATiON _ ��i r i !��.=1N?01.:'R l_INE — = 2 �_? CUNTOUR ��t �E _= �rCOR�{TIVE DRI'`✓E`JlAY L'vHT DFI� „'�uly LL, %:i�O B�ARINGS SHOWN ARE PER THE RECdRDED PLAT �'� � �10' _ �n ` d LEGAL DESCRIPTION {from county tox recbrds) lot 20, Blodc 2, SANDHURST ADDITION, Anoka County, Minnesota, except that part decribed as foilows; Beginning at the most easterly comer on the ti line between Lots 19 and 20, Biock2, thence southwesterlyolong said common fine, 15.0 feet, thence easterty to a point on the northeast�ly line of said Lo 20, a distance of 6_00 feeet southerly of the point of beginni�g, thence northeriy along the northeasterly line of soid Lot 20, 6.00 feet to the point of be ning. r RLK—MISC\SANDHlp2S7.gxd SEC 15-30-24 7-22-10 ��1 Z�� y� �� y � �� '� r � O � �' � �� d - ,� r' � l./ � � ._-.__..._� i�.fj.y,, � ii '� �.Q L. t. ��o• � $ r Q � V/ � 'o � N �1 O � � O fit t SS l ..�� 1�t E -�-�. s��K i � � i ,, , ��`-4.qp� ��t�.. t' -�-�,�,. ""� � �' O '"-�`_ ""'.�._ �' 1,�.. Z37. � 6Z ,� \ ., � ►�`, j,��, �\ � '` � � --,�� - �� . �> � � 6\ �t � �� •� a ,� � f . .. s►�'! _ � s • ,� �° � � � �� , � � � GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: Dahl Residence 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN 55432 3 � � �� 2 � � ., A � �� > . �� : , �i A (..� � �rl > -,1 � _ 2 � � ° � � �� i 3 : �� ,� . �_ i O � � � N (� � � r � s �� e�- � 01�� p' �� z ,..._ ' i� � � � f.� � �s �� . i � � � � � � �1r iIR rw � � � � .� � it �. � . �► �� "� C. Lyons Architect 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (6l. 2�965-0169 email: ggmoiri.pop@gmail.com COPYRIGHT 2009 � V' �/ ) � V / r � m m , w � 0 n � b O : � z v � �v � V � �� , � ► Z Q � � � a� N O � O ?�3AR! IddISSISSiW — \ \ \ \ 1 �� i \��\ �m �x � mZ G� N 0 �"�1 � GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: Dahl Residence 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN 55432 C. Lyons Architect 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes, MN SSQ14 (6 l 2�965-01 69 email: ggmom.pop�gmail.com COPYRIGHT 2009 m � �� _ m� ,rn N � 0 �� rD, bz r a, � IS �� SpU) Z � S ^ � / � N=m / �gpx �� ¢ mZ � � / $ �� / � � .�,�. �� 00 (° � , aa }°> � .. � �. .. , , ,� , '� ��d \ . " � �' .., . �e:d :. ;��-- ; , ; ;� / 3 / � / � / . ` / � D / -�I O ' � � / �\\ /� � . � � � � S�QYa,�, . � 0 � � � a. �� i � �. , �� : � \ G� � � � �� \ � � co� o � �� . . � �� \ � ��; �� / � Q � � � � ��° � � � � \ �=, / o `� � �. < — '� � � � \ 0 � �� D �j�o � ��/�� \ � � \� � �� \ � � � �� \ � d \ \\� ` � \ � . \ \ \ � � � � X \tCD �; � � � � � �� 5 �� s a6�r% v�°°'�/v / � �°`°i � � � � � � � GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: a� � . N Dahl Residence �"�1 � � 177 Hartman Circie 0 Fridley, MN 55432 �-� � �� ..�r � �� ll :\ \ \ � �� . � � � n= �D n� -� mD Z C. Lyons Architect 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (61 2�965-01 69 email: ggmom_pop@gmaiLcom t / (;(WYRI(;HT �()()9 �Q � �- v.� i � O O � �V I I : � � �, � . . _. � _ _� � i � -� � < � I � o �' — � � � � � , o � � -� ^ I � o � o � �� s� �� p� `,, �� I � -1� �� : �� '� � I , , �� 1 � � � � � �� I � � � � �� .' I I \ , I i � �v � i�,I. ------- i � � I � � � � � I i � � i . �� I � � i I -- ,-� , ' � � -� � � � � I � �__ � ( 'c� � � � � I I � � � I I I o cQ � I I �� I �,� I �� I � <' �' I � I � I cD �- � � �. I � I i � � cQ I i � �' I D � \ I I m D \ � � I� � -� � � I I � I �D � ; G� _�Z I I � � � I o m � .��` � � � � � � I r � � L — _i_ _ � I � � � � � o � � � �o � � � � � t � -o I I I r ' � � 1 � � i z 1 � (� � . 1 � ' Z � � � � o t I I � I = 1 _ ► I � ' f I �---.--.—.____.._. � ._ , , � GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: � -p , C. Lyons Architect N p Dahl Res�dence 39g C�1 s�-eet �� 177 Hartman Circle Lino L�es, MN 55014 � �612�965-� 169 � � Fridiey, MN 55432 ema�': g�,°m.pop��,a;�.�om COPYRIGHT 2009 6 � � _ N O � � � a �� GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: Dahi Residence 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN 55432 C. Lyons Architect 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 �61 2�965-01 69 email: ggmom.pop@gmail.com COPYRIGHT 2009 � 0 � � a� � N O .�. � � � ��'1 � GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: Dahl Residence 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN 55432 C. Lyons Architect 398 CarZ Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 �612�965-01 69 email: ggmom_pop@gmail.com COPYRIGHT 2009 Rr y a� � N O � O n� � m O , � o� �; � b� :� � � � c� � � � � � � c� � �.. � 0 ��'1 � Z O � 3 m c� < �v � . � � < c�' � c� � 0 -� � _ � � � �a � n _. � � c� GARAGE ADDITION and REMODELING FOR: Dahl Residence 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN 55432 . C. Lyons Architect 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (612)965-0169 email; ggmom_pop�gmail.com COPYRIGHT 2009 &� r - _ CIIYOF FR[DLEY FRIDLEY MtJNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/1`TY (763) 572-3534 June 8, 2010 C. Lyo�s A�chitect Attn: Carey Lyons 398 Carl Street Lino Lakes MN 55014 Dear Mr. Lyons: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 15 working days if their {and use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a variance on June 4, 2010. This letter serves to inform you that your application is not complete and is being returned to you for completion. Upon full review of your application, it was determined that you are missing information considered necessary to act upon your request. The sub�ect property is within the Shoreland Overlay, which wi{I require a topographical survey, showing the ordinary high water mark, the buffline, all structures existing and proposed on the lot and structures within 10 feet of the property line. I've attached a copy of our Shoreland Ordinance for your review. StafF would also request that you and your client set up a meeting with staff to discuss garage placement and size alternatives on this site. The proposed location and size would not receive a recommendation of approval. The City will hold your application fee in anticipation of you re-submitting a complete application in the near future. If we have not received a completed application by the end of July, the City wilf begin the refund process. . If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763- 572-3595. � Sincerely, a t berg City Plan r cc; Wayne Dahl 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 �. f��f/,�l,��'E#,�� Community Development Department City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley MN 55432 763.572.3592 Fax: 763.571.1287 www.ci.fridley,,�nn.us VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential �_ Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Signs Property Information Address: �, � � Anoka County Property Identification Number (PIN #): �� ° jJr Legal Description: 5�� 't'j ��,��b Current Zoning: (Z. � � Square footage of Parcel: Reason for Variance (one sentence summary, please attached full description) T o��--�G w c2,► ,p. tza(� i'� 1 til `` ��R. c� ht'f �`�,AR-l7 Fee/Property Owner Information (as it appears on property title) **Fee owner must sign this form prior to processing Name (please print): Mailing address: Daytime Phone: (,/1 Celi Phone: �1'Z. Signature/Date: Petitioner Information Company Name (please print): �_ Contact Person's Name (please print): Mailing address: b Daytime Phone: �,Pj � Cell Phone: �..P\�L— Signature/Date: � 0''�_ Fax Number: E-mail address: O�R•ri FOR OFFICE USE ONLY � Fees $500 - R-1, Single Family Residential � $1,400 - Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Residential/Signs /� Application Number. �/� 1-(�0.3 Receipt #: Received By �� Application Date: - - O 15 Day Application Compiete Notification Date: � - O Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: � Scheduled City Council Date: ��{2![ o 60 Day Date: �=a— [O ' 60 Day Extension Date: � �� Dahl Residence Garage Addition 6/4/2010 Variance Request Hardship / Discussion items: 1. Pie shaped properties require lazger than normal front yard setbacks to accomxnoda.te house placement and still a11ow vehicular access and circulation. 2. Steep river bluff incline limits access to back yard for garage access. 3. Water&ont properly presents a challenge to traditional frontyazd / backyazd definition, the logical desire is to develop the waterfront as the front VS the yard adjacent to the street. q 4. The Dahl property is approx. 46,000 sf, more than,�times the size of a minimum required 5,000 sf residential property, which is the basis for establishing the maaLimum allowable garage size of 1,400 sf. 5. Existing residence, to the East, has it's garage within it's front yard. 6. E�sting residence, to the West, has it's garage well in front of the Dahl residence and considerably `in his front yazd'. 7. The proposed garage addition (1,900 sfl combined with the existing house (2,700 s� equals a total of 4,600 sf, which is less than 10% of the total site area compared to the code allowable 35%. $. Additional trees and shrubs are proposed as a part of this request, to aide in screening the garage from the street 9. The azchitectural character of the existing house will be closely matched in the proposed new garage. 10. The median height of the proposed garage roof will be only 12' — 4" VS the allowa.ble 14' — 0". � ,,, � � �v�,�i�� - �� -� .�' � i� Development Review Committee Worksheet Asldress• 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #10- ❑ Paui Bolin v Rachei Harris ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Dave Jensen Ptannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage v Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buiidina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ . . Julie Jones ❑ Ra1ph Messer Ron ]ulkowski o Layne Otteson Jim Kosluchar o Mary Smith � Stacy Stromberg Enaineerin�Issues: ❑ Drainage ' ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: o Truck aaess ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ ��vv ��-�j �ac �r� �� o_� � I i vtie � f- �t�e � ��►�.e �o r Stipulations: � ��' � Y 1 Name: � � � Date: � i � ,� j,,,� �;�i��►�� , ✓�,�� i 5 l� ��; �� r,�Jp, ��J ��_ �TL�� i �% � �1�;�V�G'� �'/Gti 1 v�`' �}�'CU � �� k� � �-� I � I�,�, h/l UV�s �I'�� ,�� '1�1.e � i'V I,�iY ot,e �F -G VI.e � 0 vlf'� � V�, V �V�' ``WY u� Q � , � ` �� (�V`E� � �. � �, �'W��' a � ►�o v Paul Bolin ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ DaveJensen �' )ulie )ones ❑ Ron ]ulkowski o ,]im Kosluchar Plannin Is, u s: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square foota9e ❑ Height v Landscape ❑ Hardshi sta�ement/narrative � — Buil_ dina Is�s es: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans o SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: ❑ Ralph Messer ❑ Layne Ottteson o Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issue : ❑ Drainage o Utilities ❑ Curbing requ+rem � ts ` j� �e J�' � ,� ��rp issues: v Truck access o Sprinlcler requirements ❑ Hydrant 4ocation ❑ Date: °'�+ � ` t �� _ Name: �. v Paul Bolin o Rachel Harris �Scott Hickok v DaveJensen . . . Plannina Is u : ❑ Setbacks v Lot coverage ❑ ANowable square faota9e ❑ Height v Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ g��= sues: n 2007 State Bu�lding Code o Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: _ ► ni^ Comments: ._ ti 1/ 7u19e )ones ❑ Raiph Messer Ron Juikowski ❑ LaYne OtteSOn Jim Kosluchar v Mary Smith v Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina � ❑ Drainage o Ut�lities o Curbing requ+rements ❑ Fire� ❑ Truck access o Spr�n�er requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ t Date: Name: , , , f �,.... Develoament Review Committee Worksheet p 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #10- P ul Bolin ❑]uiie 7ones v Ratph Messer ❑ chel Harris v Ron ]ulkowski ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ Mary Smith o Dave Jensen ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues• o Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height o Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues; ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ F..��e�rina Issues: ❑ Drainage v Utilities o Curbing requirements 0 Stipulations: � •�_ s�0 g �- � �� Comments: Name: Fire Issues: o Truck aaess ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location 0 Date: � � � / Deveiopment Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case; VAR_#10- ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Julie Jones o Ralph Messer ❑ Rachel Harris �' Ron Julkowski ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Scott Hickok v Jim Kosluchar ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Dave Jensen o Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed pians ❑ SAC Units ❑ ��`/��8,�_/�I� GE Stipulations: Comments: Name: Enaineering Issues: ❑ Drainage o Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant loca�on ❑ , � Date: �� 177 Hartman Circle � : - :�„: - .� � � � ._ ,.. �x•' ,<� �;, ,., ��:�. . a �,.: � f -{ . '�.. E�� . . � , � ._' y� � ' 1 e �� 7 � �� .�� ,. � ' i o � 1 "�.�lL^.-� " . � �. — �ia.� � - "�._ , : � i m �� , ro I � f 1. i� 4a � .�,! � �� in;_-aJ .IRa'f , � r„ � . ,��, �� _ P �� ,�'�.� � . �,�� 1 �°'�" ' +�. �:7 . � . . �'� � 1 Y: • . � �R � IP1 Y'r, � � ,� 4: � � �,,,. �' �,� � � � ��; ��,�x '� �'� Y.t�,, . « `�; � �'�. , � � . �r. �!'�'� "� � ;� � �.. ys � •. � � r�•��._- � �a: �; :..! �. .��. '�t^a ` M ' �� . r .: r ' . � � ',' vR.Ci!4.�• . � ''ii� � • �''}��E. �- . °"'t b/ i'f i 7f �` , �� ti'•. " 't: � -�. .� �� . - a f y y �� r'�� ,�`1 +H ) : ,,, • � �y.T ,; s � � Yf.�. . I` . . - .� ' � j ' . .�, st::�'r � �iF� � 1':�,'°�' � � � L . � � �� .��.� p��f.��'� r� � f3 � � /: �. �'� � �y�� 4 .�� \ � ' hY�" R�� ' � 4�f +�JO } .. i � 1 �it ..� �r;vY. T.i"'. bl•i� r /'.. � A.: �.. ms" �' '.t. `��. � �� _� ��..�k � �� s � �, 1 � �Y� � �..� v�` � �� )� �M� . � ,, : ta , .. ,� ; � .� w' � ,.. �'`.�"' �,� . �.. :� -a- •. . .!�� . �s� , _ � r . : ` , `�4'•`'^ �+ .�,f` � ' s ' �� .,�� > a "�' ,,. � �'• � k�; .�aY'-,.� `� .,' '� .ra'L ` .' � -� ��..-, ' y J+''" � � . - � � �`. ..,'�' . ` �r u•� � �� _ � t T .� .... �• . �'�t.,,,�� . . �' ��i r . ` � '4�af:''' . '3 ' y`� n Disclamer This infoimation is bemy tl5lributetl as Cemonsiration tla�a only_ You should not use the data tor any olher purposes a� this time. This informa[ion is lo be usetl for reference purposes only. w�;, E Copynght O 2070 City o7Fndley. All Rights Reserved �' s Printed 08l15l2011 , �� ` - -- �� i � h'�-_�'' ' . �, ;t .� � , j ! ; 'A � I UI --1----v t s �i�� 1'i '—� —� ! , � rt� � '�' ��;�ti ' �o ' � a _��Z1�..�L�----- --- I � If � �i .�, � I,f' f i� �_�_�L L.i�v_ �,t. , � ��n �A v��u � I,�,� �� A C.,� � p �i_ ��, —� s ;1 � � n ��,� � 0 Y D� �� .� �{ �//111 � v � �� .'_°._..._�._.__.._.. .�....._.... "'_"".. __ ._.. ._ . ...._r._.�._._.��..._.°_.....__....-. . .._..__.._..�.__..�..�._-.�> �__.__es _ _ — — _...__....� _..._,.__.___._,_ . _,_�, _.__ __.�..r._aea. ,..d,w..,_.....»�..�._....,.�..e« . , . . � .. _ ��_�___�:t�..L . w�,21t?.►��;i�.�._r��, � S�J� aa2 �� 1.�Z � tTlS�C.t�}"C. L� — /�lN� _ _ __ -/-�=��.-PU-c_�4%��?�.z- < <-c-- -.I .�z�� ; *�_� _�. �.._� � _ ' _ _ L.�N?'j__�'C'2 �.�� L l��"i� � )/l1 TiL,� �L�e � l.S.i Q'l.� lS rC,.IG��)� , � ' �- T �- ��__~ _r_��__�� _`� � �� J.� _.__ _..__��.� __ __. .__-.�_.._�. � ' 1,2,�i i A-��'i, �m ��r� �1-�f�t;�r��izav �'F.-��.9-��1G9rt�iV .e�.�� lti1f� �_. �L..�_..�_�__r_._..___._._�._.___________ L�,'� w'`r �/�'� � `� ,J'` , , � �� G��` _ � �� « � ��— �� l� ��`� � i�� c� � c�� o�� - �� k'� � - �;� 1��.�f�� +� �� '�----= - ��"U�Ci�: i � 1�1/l.� �"� � � . _ ��v��, �-�- -�-� �oG►��,�� ll �"i;� �' � L'� � � , �I , � � - �----- ; � , � �G ��,� � Lc'�,V' r/l,t� w3 � � ✓ - ��'�,�L- � . i� ��'w�,� �� 6 �� ' l� o��,✓ ��c�e .� F �'I�. 1/� � vl,�t , �b �ti �" �F �►�l.e �� F�. .lovt,(�i � v� � l ��. l► v�,� �►� -�l� D �a(�,�. a.w1 �� h �1C� �f' iM c�;� . , ° V GUVI �t,Vl �_ vv i l I I� i��.,v(,�-�- �C o .�I�, ��L��i� v��v�- �ov�w�.1v�� ►�� o � �l�t,e �, (��v�� ,, av�.�t - � I�V , 6!�r�,%, l��c�.,i�t,� '(" 0��t, i( r�- � l, 33a- ��I;!��Q � DV�. � I � OG'� � �v1 l L I�, . DV� � . ,'''. � . W � � ��t�/l, �C �O � �v �n bUU i ��1,� �l;i Vl � i � 0� 0�� I�U� _ J .� :r,� � ��, ��- � . _ � ° � I�/i ��I.G �G�,c�i I�� 0�J � �� 1 ��U �, ' �'� F� � �� , w� i ��c�, �.6u�,�� I� -a • � > • • � � • ; v �� l�1�;�1n.� . � �tr�'� o ►'l��t . t�v + ��v �-uvi� �� ,,_ �,��v� � . � ,� � � �l l��U v� ��1 � i-� � �,r�C � � �� - � �� . � � = c� i� � -� . � ��, �� o(,�' �� a,�r�.�,��'� � c�G,,�� voui�c�, i� �� l �c�.o�� , � �� o� -� ln� � ��v ► ► { [ o � � I � I� � � ��, � � v� v �1 � c�� `" v� l�,�w �.ei1��c�, � � � � � � � � ur� ,� �� ►-'1�C o� �� 1��.,� - 10 � ID . ��;� ,��, � � �, U;� j�. �� , i��,,i, � � ��tV�(,� ►��' �►� �l�� a� � p� ; - rV1 oi I v� � ow�� -��i� F I �'V l �/�/� '�,/'� / c�{, � i�� r� i'i V� ��,�'. a�,'�'� ,�ii.� �VG vl �a� V� � u�(,r��'� oi� C i��, �, v� , �il�'� �� I��S � InCommerce Solutions, Inc. 4304 W. 28`�' Street Minneapolis, MN 554I6 Phone: 651-325-8497; recllll@comcasd,net February 17, 2011 Mr. Scott Hickok Comm�ty Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Scott: I have reviewed the materials you ha.ve provided me relative to my client's (Wayne Dahl, DC, 177 Hartman Circle) plans for the construction of an attached garage of 1900 sq.ft. on the west side of his property and converking the existing attached garage into living space. Dahl has a number of antique automobiles he would like to store in this larger garage rather than park them outdoars. The following are the facts as best as I am able to determine: l. Dr. Dahl's house is currently located on 1.06 acres (46,000 sq. fi.) of land. 2. His property borders the Mississi,ppi River on the west, pazk land and a former creek bed on the south, a home on the east, Hartman Circle street on the northeast, and another home on the northwest. This odd-shaped lot makes it difficult to clearly delineate front and side yards. 3. Dr. Dahl's architect (Carey Lyons) has created the site plan and architectural plans that have been submitted to you for approval and have been discussed with you and your staff. A number of changes have been made to these plans sincE his first submission to make the new garage more compliant with your department's wishes. 4. Mr. Lyons related to me that at the first meeting in your office they were told �ey did not have to wony about the setback requirements, but must get a survey to validate the setbacks and the only concern will be the size of the building. 5. Since then, the setback requirements ha.ve come back into play, and the architect reported that you stated the approved setback variance only applied to the shed. One of the variances relates to the setback from the bluff and another from the river. 6. In a recorded telephone ca11 to the DNR, the DNR representa.tive states that the DNR allows local communities to make decisions on river setback requirements. When you and I met, you stated that what the DNR may say and what they may do are two different things, and you would not be surpri$ed if they took action if a variance is granted. It may be that the DI�tR only beco�, a�volved if it is an egregious vioIatian that could harm the river. 7. Regarding the siz� of the new garage, curren� �i�ing regulations a11ow a 1,400 s�.ft.building, �ot 1900 sq. ft. The architect understqod that some of the space in the garage could be living space, say S00 sq.ft. I don't icnow if this affects the 1400 sq. ft. limitation or not. 8. Another issue was adding on to a home that is a nonconforming use. I understand the City did approve adding a garage to a neighbor's home that did not previously have a garage. I am told tha.t the City granted this variance that allowed the garage to be built on the edge of the bluff behind the residence even though it could have been situated on the properiy without granting a variance. I may not have the complete story. 9. Dr. Dahl could build his garage without a variance on the east side of his property but this would result in blocking the river view of his neighbor, would require a drive up ramp, would destroy a beautiful new patio, would require the removal of mature trees in the front yard, and be significantly less architecturally unattractive. I am attempting to look at this as objectively as possible. My only bias is that my Fridley roots go back many decades, I served on many commissions during the development years, and although I currently do not live in Fridley, I am still emotionally attached to the community and involved through the Fridley Historical Society. I feel bound to honor my father's many contributions to the City (including a housing development) over his lifetime. He was born in Fridley in 1902, lived in the city for his lifetime of 73 years and is in the Fridley Hall of Fame for his many years of service to the Township/Village/City of Fridley. T'herefore, in my heart, I want what I feel is best for the City. This includes honoring its ordinances and regulations. At the same time, I see merit in taking into consideration that the City is alive and constantly changing for the better. When the old and the new intersect, I have always embraced the new if it makes for a better City. In Dr. Dahl's case, the old represents ordinances and regulations that were enacted as appropriate for smaller lots and medium priced homes. So I have to ask, what are the possible effects of not granting him a 1900 square foot garage on the river side of the property, and the possible effects of moving this forwazd with a justifiable rationale for doing so. The case for not recommending this to the Appeals Commission: 1. Setback requirements and building size require variances and Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance." 2. The DNR could determine that granting a variance would do irrepazable hazm to the river. 3. This could set a precedent that might be used by resident applicants to justify other types of variances. 2 The case for recommending this to the Appeals Commission: 1. HF 52 is before the House Government Operations and Elections Committee that would reinstate city variance authority. SF 13 has yet to have a hearing. Making Dahl's request contingent ott this law passing is workh considering. 2. Dr. Dahl's property is unique in being over an acre in size. T'he zoning ordinance did not consider larger lot sizes being a factor as zoning ordina.nces were written as there were so few of them. Other suburbs do make exceptions on lot sizes based on my readings of other zoning ordinances. Thus allowing this variance is in keeping with "reasonable use." 3. A precedent has been set with a neighbor's property being granted a setback variance. 4. The first floor square footage of his house with the garage conversion to living space is 2,500 square feet making him compliant in this respect related to size. 5. Allowances should be made for any resident who wants to upgrade and improve their property which benefits the neighborhood. Dr. Dahl has vehicles parked outdoors that do not beautify 1�e neighborhood. The addition to his home is architecturally beautiful, includes additional trees, preserves a neighbor's view of the river, preserves a very attractive patio, and thus does enhance the neighborhood. 6. Fridley is struggling in raising tax revenue due to limitations in the City Charter and expected further cuts in aid to cities by the Legislature. This is a$150,000 addition that will generate more tax revenue for the City, and would carry over to raising the values of neighborhood residences generating additional tax revenue. This could go forward to the Appeals Commission with the above justifications and be contingent on legislation that gives the City of Fridley more leeway in granting variances, and the DNR not objecting to�the variance. The DNR took no action on the very unattractive steel wall put up in front of a residence across the river, and being Dr. Dahl's river front is protected by attractive boulders, is not likely to object to his attached garage being it has no direct effect on the river. Please give this your thoughtful consideration. I know that you share my vision for continually improving and enhancing the best city in Anoka County. Best regards, � ,1 .��-::.e .. ,��,� , , �'" �,�-��O,,.F'� _ � � .�... . _.�,w r �' ��,.r,, �s%� � � "° Robert Christenson President InCommerce Solutions, Inc. �3 , , A , i�__ �� G� 7/ _-^', �� __ _ � �� ` � \�, �` � , � � . � .� ;, �. _ � �� ,% �Ll- '- �`'� , ,.' ; 4 - � , � ` , � , ----- ,, � __��.__ �__ 9L� Q0�'lTI � � �� _ .;, _ �i � ' � � �' ��. / //'I % , / � � � �I ' �� i� *�''� ��' ��y r -_-� , , �� ; , �� I � � , '7 , ' ; � ' # , _________ �; Hickok, Scott From: Peggy Schmid [mnapa@buffleheadweb.net] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 6:13 PM To: irishyaya@bufFleheadweb.net Subject: Chapter Membership Legislative Update and Planners Day at the Capitol info APA Minnesota Chapter Members: Following are updates on two planning-related bills now before the legislature. Zonina Variance Bill On February 24th, the Minnesota House of Representatives heard House File No. 52 - a bill introduced in response to the Minnesota Supreme Court's Krummenacher v. Gity of Minnetonka decision. Following 2 hearings in the House Government Operations passed the amended bill out of committee. The current language can be view at: http://wdoc.house.lea.state.mn.us/lea/LS87/HF0052.1.pdf As currently drafted, the bill would change the zoning variance standard for municipalities (i.e., cities and towns) from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties." It would also eliminate the particular hardship standard for counties. In this bill, counties and municipalities have to apply the same practical difficulties standard to zoning variances. "Practical difficulties" means "the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The Senate Companion Bill is S.F. No. 13 In January of this year, APA MN signed on as a supporter of this LMC initiative to align the county and municipal variance statutes. Under current law, there is a difference befinreen the authority for counties and municipalities to impose conditions on a variance. Counties have the authority to impose conditions "to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest." However, municipalities only have the authority to impose conditions "to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties." This bill would not remedy that inconsistency. Interim Ordinance Bills On February 7th, a bill (H.F. No. 389) introduced in the House would require counties and municipalities to publish a notice 10 days before holding a public hearing to adopt an interim ordinance (moratorium) and alter how it can be applied. The bill can be viewed at: http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/lea/LS87/HF0389.O.pdf It would require the ordinance be adopted by a two-thirds vote. Currently, there is no mandatory public hearing requirement (except regulations for livestock production requires 10 day notice before the public hearing) or vote requirement. Additionally, the bill would provide that the moratorium "must not halt, �delay, or impede consideration of a use, development, or subdivision for which a complete application is pending," The application is complete if it meets the requirements set forth in the ordinance. An incomplete application "must be returned to the applicant with an explanation detailing the incomplete portions and providing an opportunity to correct the deficiency." The Senate Companion bill is S.F. No. 389. There is also language in the bil{ that would change the municipal authority for subdivision deve{opment contracts. The bill would not authorize municipalities to require conditions "that are not authorized by statute or mutually agreed upon" and require the amount of financial security for authorized work to have a"direct and proportionate relationship to the work to be comp{eted by the subdivider or subdivider's contractor." Additionally, the bill would require that municipalities provide a copy of the development contract to the subdivider or contractor at least three days before approval. Subsequently, on February 14th, another bill (H.F. No. 519) regulating just municipal interim ordinances was introduced. This bill eliminates the requirement that, before adopting an interim ordinance, a municipality be conducting a study or have authorized a study or have held or scheduled a hearing to adopt or amend a comprehensive plan or official controls. How to Review all Planninq Related Bills on Chaater Website Information on planning related bills and their status introduced in the 2011 session can be viewed on the chapter website at: http://www.mnapa.com/leqislative committee.php To review bill language or the current status on a bill in the session from this page, just open the current Tracking Spread Sheet for House and Senate and then just click on the bill link. Look for more updates soon. 2011 Planners Dav at the Caaitol Fridav April 15th 8ave the date for this year's planners program at the capitol. A program flier and details for the event will be announced soon. APA Minnesota Legislative Committee Summary - House Research Department - MN House of Representatives Page 1 of 1 �- Legisiature Nome � l.inks to the Worid � Nelp � Advanced 5earch �+(in��ta Hc�use �f ttepres��t�tiv�s H�se _ �ear� M*�. .. �,.��..,. .. .. .... .. Hquse ( Senate � Joint Departments and Commisslons � Bill Search and 5tatus { Statutes, Laws, and Rules House Research Home > Bill Summaries Bill Summary House Research Department File Number: H.F. 52 Version: First engrossment Date: February 17, 2011 Authors: Peppin and others Subject: Local government, zoning variances Analyst: Deborah A. Dyson, 651-296-8291 This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call 651-296-6753 (voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529 (TTY) for assistance. Modifies the standards for granting a variance from a county, city, or town zoning control. Provides for similar standards in the county and municipal (city and town) planning and zoning statutes. The term "hardship" is eliminated. Permits a zoning authority to grant a variance to a zoning control if there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning control. "Practical difficulties" means: •"the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and • the variance, if granted, will not alter the essentiaV character of the locality." A variance may be granted only if it is "in harmony with the general purposes and intenY' of the ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Effective the day after enactment. This bill is in response to the June 2010, Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d (Minn. 2010) (interpreting "undue hardship" in the municipal variance statute), and an earlier decision relating to counties, In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008) (interpreting the application of "practical difficulties" and "particular hardship" in the county variance statute). In Krummenacher, the court held that the city did not have authority to grant the variance if the property owner could put the property to a reasonable use without a variance (part of the "undue hardship" requirement). The court stated that the legislature would have to take action to provide a more flexible variance standard. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/87/HF0052.htm1 3/14/2011 S.F. No. 13, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Page 1 of 2 �•,, Legisiature Home � Links to the Worid � Help � Advanced Sea�ch �� n�� ;; �House (�Senate � Joini Departments and Gommissions � Biil Search and Status � Statutes, Laws, and Rules KEY: °�'��n = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language. Authars and Status List versions S.F. No. 13, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2017-2072) Posted on Jan 07, 2011 1.1 A bill for an act 1• 2 relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county, and town i. 3 zoning controls and ordinances;amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 1.4 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6. i. 5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: i. 6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394.27, subdivision 7, is amended to read: 1•� Subd. 7. Variances; �at�s#ip aractical difficulties. The board of adjustment 1• 8 shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the terms of any i. 9 official control including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be 1.10 permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official 1.11 control ' i.12 , and when the terms of the variance 1.13 are consistent with the comprehensive plan. " '" i.ia 1.15 1.16 � 1.17 . Variances may be , � i.18 granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties i.19 in comnlvin� with the official control "Practical difficulties." as used in connection with i. 20 the r� a�g of a variance. means that the propertv owner proposes to use the property in a i. 21 reasonable manner not permitted bv an official control; the pli t of the landowner is due 1• 22 to circumstances unique to the �roperty not created bv the landowner; and the variance, �. 23 if �ranted, will not alter the essential character of the localiri. Economic considerations i. 24 alone ska�} do not constitute 2• 1 practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not 2• 2 limited to, inadequate access to direct sunli�ht for solar energy s stY ems. Variances shall be 2• 3 granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, 2• 4 when in harmony with the official controls. No variance may be granted that would allow 2• 5 any use that is ��e� not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is 2• 6 located. The board of adjustment may impose conditions and miti�atingre�c uirements 2•� in the granting of variances to insure compliance a�, to protect adjacent properties, and 2• 8 ��er•es� to protect the public health. safery, or the environment. �ke-bea� 2.9 �� "• 2.10 2. il EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the dav followin��final enactment, 2• 12 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6, is amended to read: 2.13 Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and 2. ia adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bi11=S0013.0.htm1&session=1s87 3/14/2011 S.F. No. 13, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) 2. �5 conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has 2.16 the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: 2• 1� (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any 2• 18 order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.2s 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the ' � �� , terms of the zoning ordinance includine restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall onlv be �ermitted when they are in harmonv with the e�purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances ma�granted when the ap�licant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complyin� with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties." as used in connection with the rg anting.of a variance, means that the propertv owner proposes to use the pro�eriv in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone s�a�} do not constitute . ,practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but 3s are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not �e� allowed under the zonine ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions and miti�ating requirements in the granting of variances to insure compliance a�, to protect adjacent properties and to protect the public health, safety, or the environment. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment. Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. last updated: 04/15/2009 Page 2 of 2 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bi11=S0013.0.htm1&session=1s87 3/14/2011 Stromberg, Stacy From: Stromberg, Stacy Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:41 PM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: Dr. Dahl Hi Scott, Sorry I can't be there for your meeting tomorrow...will you actually be meeting with Dr. Dahl or just Mr. Christenson? If Dr. Dahl is involved, I'm sorry..... Here are some of the comments I have related to the letter from Mr. Christenson, those not necessarily for his view, I thought I would provide them to you. Pa 4. That is an untrue statement, the City required a survey to determine where the house in situated on the lot, so we could determine how the setbacks were impacted that what variances would be necessary. 5. Untrue statement, we determined that several variances would be required for the garage addition that Mr. Dahl was proposed. Those are 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water mark, 40 ft setback from the bluff, over 1,000 sq. ft. for a garage, accessory structure space over 1,400 sq. ft., freestanding garage in the front yard, and garage more than 5 ft in front of the home. That is (6) variances. We worked with Dr. Dahl and Mr. Lyons to try to reduce those. 6. The DIVR requires the City to enforce their rules, so they simply wouldn't allow us to purposety violate the 100 ft. setback for the 40 ft. setback. Current code requires a max. of 1,000 sq. ft. for any one accessory structure, not 1,400 sq. ft. Page Z 8. Variance for neighbors property was approved to reduce the Eront yard setback for an attached garage, garage is not on the edge of a bluff, behind the residence. Page 3 - 1. HF 52 reinstating the City's variance authority. - Even iEpassed, there still needs to be some type oE"hardship" or "practical difficulty" before a variance can be granted. 2. A text amen be pursue 'fferent regulations larger lots size 3. Neighbors garage was a different situations. VAR #00-0 at 191 Hartman ircle was approved to reduce the Eront yard setback from 35 ft. to 32 ft. to construct an attached garage. No variance was granted that impacted t e 100 ater mark setbac 4. ? 5. The City wants people to upgrade their properties that meet code requirements. Last paragraph - stating variance could be granted if the DNR doesn't object - the DNR will object, thoug6 they might not enforce their rules, we have to. Stacy Strom6erg Planner City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 stro��gsCc�ci.fridley.mn.us Phone: 763.572.3595 Fax: 763-571-12877 www.ci.fridley.mn.us InCommerce Solutions, Inc. 4304 W. 28"' Street Mini:eapolis, MN 55416 Plione: 657-325-8497; reellll@comcust.net February 17, 2011 Mr. Scott Hickok Camm�uiity Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridiey, MN 55432 Dear Scott: I have reviewed the materials you have provided me relative to my client's (Wayne Dahl, DC, 177 Hartman Circle) plans for the construction of an attached garage of 1900 sq.ft. on the west side of his property and converting the e�cisting atta.ched gara.ge into living space. Dahl has a number of antique automobiles he would like to store in this larger garage rather than park them outdoors. The following are the facts as best as I am able to determine: �. Dr.��7ahi's house is currently located on 1.06 acres (46,000 sq. ft.) of land. 2. His property borders the Mississippi River on the west, park land and a former creek bed on the south, a home on the east, Hartma.n Circle street on the northeast, and another home on the northwest. This odd-shaped lot makes it difficult to clearly delineate front and side yazds. 3. Dr. Dahl's architect (Carey Lyons) has created the site plan and architectural plans that have been submitted to you for approval and have been discussed with you and your staif. A number of changes have been made to these plans since his first submission to make the new garage more compliant with your department's wishes. �,✓1�I" Wl, �i � 4. Mr. Lyons related to me that at the first meeting in your office they were told they did �,y�/ r�1�i/1,5-- not have to worry about the setback requirements, but must gei a survey to validate �-�,�,j��,�, � D the setbacks and the only concern will be the size of the building. ��, � the setback requirements have come back into play, and the architect �� O� �ti✓r'✓l � �,r, 5. Since then, ��t ✓ � �� C,9� �� L�' reported that you stated the approved setback variance only applied to the shec� On�i✓� ✓(.e 0 U� � �r �� of the variances relates to the setback from the bluff and another from the river. 6. In a recorded telephone call to the DNR, the DNR representa.tive states that the DNR allows local com�nunities to make decisions on river setback requirements. When you x � and I met, you sta.ted that what the DNR may say and what they may do aze two � Y�/ p/ different things, and you would not be surprised if they took action if a vanance is ��l/`" � a be that the DNR onl becomes involved if it is an egregious violation�� (� 0� granted. It m y Y �,� that could harm the river. �'r�� ` X �' 7. Regarding the siz� of the new gara.ge, current zoning regulations a11ow a 1,400 Y p� sq.ft.building, not 1900 sq. ft. The architect understood tha.t some of the space in the ��J garage could be living space, say 500 sq.ft. I don't know if this affects the 1400 sq. ft. � �� GC�Ii i�! F(i►r �`V� ��w9,.C��i..✓�, �,�-(�GU i� ��i'i� limitation or not. � 8. Another issue was adding on to a home that is a nonconforming use. I understand the ��,,,G� „ City did approve adding a garage to a neighbor's home that did not previously have a G�.� �v � � --� garage. I am told that the City granted this variance that allowed the garage to be built `�� ,� on the edge of the bluff behind the residence even though it could have been situated ��,� � on the property without granting a variance. I may not have the complete story. n 9. Dr. Dahl couki build his garage without a variance on the east side of his property but this would result in blocking the river view of his neighbor, would require a drive up ramp, would destroy a beautiful new patio, would require the removal of mature trees in the front yard, and be significantly less architecturally unattractive. I am attempting to look at this as objectively as possible. My only bias is that my Fridley roots go back many decades, I served on many commissions during the development years, and although I currently do not live in Fridley, I am still emotionally attached to the community and involved through the Fridley Historical Society. I feel bound to honor my father's many contributions to the City (including a housing development) over his lifetime. He was born in Fridley in 1902, lived in the city for his lifetime of 73 years and is in the Fridley Ha11 of Fame for his many years of service to the Township/Village/City of Fridley. Therefore, in my heart, I v�cant what I feel is best for the City. This includes honoring its ordinances and regulations. At the same time, I see merit in taking into consideration that the City is alive and constantly changing for the better. When the old and the new intersect, I have always embraced the new if it makes for a better City. In Dr. Dahl's case, the old represents ordina.nces and regulations thax were enacted as appropriate for smaller lots and medium priced homes. So I have to ask, what aze the possible effects of not granting him a 1900 square foot garage on the river side of the property, and the possible effects of moving this forward with a justifiable rationale for doing so. . The case for not recommending this to the Appeals Commission: 1. Setback requirements and building size require variances and Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the sta.tute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance." 2. The DNR could determine that granting a variance would do irreparable harm to the river. 3. T'his could set a precedent that might be used by resident applicants to justify other types of variances. 2 The case for recommending this to the Appeals Commission: �,�'� ��r ` ��,�r �" e �� i�-iti �' �� i/�, �� rC'i I I►'I � i�i � � l� 1. HF 52 is before the Hous �Government Operations an�lections Committee that ��,�'6�� i varianc�e authori . SF 13 has et to have a hearin . Makin �-��'�� ,pj� would remstate c ty ty y g g �� Dahl's request contingent on this law passing is worth considering. bY � �'� 2. Dr. Dahl's property is unique in peing over an acre in size. The zoning ordinance �, did not consider larger lot sizes being a factor as zoning ordinances were written as � there were so few of them. Other suburbs do make exceptions on lot sizes based on � � m readin s of other zoning ordinances. Thus allowing this variance is in keeping �� y g � O�S - with "reasonable use." �/' � 3. A precedent has been set with a neNighbor'.s properly being gr�nted a setback � variance. �, GJ��'Vl,p�t �Q � l }� .�'o r � a ,� �,� ��,�j 4. The first oor squar� foo e of his house with the garage conversion to living �''" � space is 2,500 square feet making him compliant in this respect related to size. � �,� �� 3 �F�'� 5. Allowances should be made for any resident who wants to upgrade and improve �" ,� their property which benefits the neighborhood. Dr. Dahl has vehicles parked � outdoors tilat do not beautify he neighborhood. The addition to his home is j�� architecturally beautiful, includes additional trees, preserves a neighbor's view of the river, preserves a very attractiv atio, and thus does e ance e n" porhood. p�� ' . w�l� c��.,� -�� rr�� cva� ►� 6. Fridle is stru l� i r�aising tax revenue due to luni t a ttons m t he i t y C h a r t er Y gg � and expected further cuts in aid to cities by the Legislature. This is a$150,000 addition that will generate more tax revenue for the City, and would carry over to raising the values of neighborhood residences generating additional taxxevenue. �This could go forward to the Appeals Commission with the above justifications and be � contangent on legislation that gives the City of Fridley more leeway in granting variances, ` and he�NR not objecting to the variance. The DNR took no action on the very l� 1`� �° unattractive steel wall put up in front of a residence across the river, and being Dr. Dahl's r � river front is protected by attractive boulders, is not likely to object to his attached garage �� being it has no direct effect on the river. Please give this your thoughtfiil considera.tion. I know that you share my vision for continually improving and enhancing the best city in Anoka County. Best regards, rv..�„-7 �,.: - ,_ , .�.,� ' � ��.� ... �' �' ,- �,,,,,.r � ., . ��a�-� Robert Christenson President InCommerce Solutions, Inc. .� ��' �I �l ��L% � I� �� r�' ��ti'i �i �%� � V'�� - �� I I � �� r�� , �� w �� p ��'s � �? �'c�it,��l �'�,��i �'w'G�.�,�/i c�i�,/�i . i C� r. r�"1,�-1 �v . �� l� ,�" G�t �C �C- � i'I�� (�� G'G 1 V�� , • n � � �� '�� ' � . � ��l r � l� � � �� '� � ,v� � � �il' �/ -��; ,r�l� �� 'C �:�itii, � �! ��V G Vr�(,V�,�c, (�-�;1 � �l� vL �� I ►v� �- !�I �i, �� . e .�' � /� � � � - .�' �./ � 4ti , ,�� L , l�,i � � I , �.��l� �� V'� U �� , � � : , n ;. ., ,, , ��v G�{,-� (�, J'd"'�'�'�'�'I G� I✓i �C �� i b. f/`�,G��V i I ` ' �:.�iG�.� � II b� IG��`I � I�,-C�� ' 'V,�'��' �G��r(,' ��--� �� C�� Qri�, 1)I�� (��I/ / ('�� q� ; � V1GVl � �� 4 ��,��rl� ��' �� •i" V� Y V f ��1�� VV��'Y l� ��v � �� I . -�-� G� C ��D �lj ��'VU, i� Ui;V,� �'�' �� u ��'� 1, �"�D � � �� . ., �� :, , ,� �� -� ,�;�� G�,�. :��. ��1,�i� ._ _ �' � ' � i?� � � � �1 � � ,�� Y�� .��.. ��y� ��-1 ��vl,� -- �- � DO l Q � 0��'i �� 'W�►�M ` �w'y� ��o�� y�1 2�1-� � o a2)� �°�9� ��o�? �vj.� �� k�� - . _ 2� �� U VI I �� .�� - � �� lo' i � �� (��i ' I �k a''� �.� 'vu'�1,�I � 1 '��QM ,��j �I ^ - ��ti�,�a��,� C�� .�� C � �,��v� �� 3�� c� � � � �� -� � � - ��" l � ►�!�. �� _� v�� 5 I 1/VV� ' U► n"� � 1,^ �,�� ,.� ,��'yl . 1� � �n � �, oM � ' � �� o o � � � ) � � � �� a� o� �� v1 � � i. - _ � �' ��,� �� , __ � � �� ,�� c� ��. � � �� . �i�'Y��M,�� . � ti� !�1�!�� , U�1� -�i�'�I Cl� �/I� U 1�1 �� 5�! vw►'� �v!� ��. ��-� r� �� "�o J,� 1 U �.i��;►�'1�� I �J i ��'�1�° � � �! _av' � 1 � v� 1� - �� i��'��1 1 � � �. � - � n�, � 1;� � �� l�'�- n�'vn-,�- i1�0 � � 1� '�'/1 U o,} �Q'� �� 1 1/� 0 i��i'� '��(I ,(�1� � � ( �� vr� �"�t0 ) �,�� 1 �— _ v�� v�� .�,�� ,� �i� i ) �1��,� , __ �a� �d ��a �� - � � �� M � � �� a1� , �� I 5 Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 o Paul Bolin ❑ John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage o Allowable square footage o Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship s�atementJ arrative �C I. �i ) ✓G'l�i (�j .V Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Name: QV�,C ��I �' � �,� �'n�'1 ��,v�, � ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith �(; Stacy Stromberg � ., Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Date: � ( 1 ��L�-�o��.��,�� . � ►� i�.,�' r�� ,� w� �,� ,�,�(,, �C o � � vi�i� ( i r�, �� ' �. �+ �� Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Dave )ensen ❑ John Crelly ❑ Julie 7ones ❑ Rachel Harris v Ron Julkowski � Scott Hickok Plannina Issues: ��'�-� Setbacks �.gs� E � e��. ❑ Lot coverage y�,�� --�i Allowable square footage �gput iN 7 (�VR/ ❑ Height CONPUa"' ❑ Landscape � Hardship statement/narrative o �� l�ll��tt /- j�T�IJV� Buildina Issues: 0 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues• ❑ Truck access o Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Comments: ( •�..n.,_I,._ . ...,....u. A_ _ _ .�. _�.. /..,� \ . - • .. -- ----- Name: �t1TlG�•e. ��e.�t�sr.s,o�v r� �-�`� 7-RO,w�z .- �4�� ,e,N,�,�✓oN � ��'� l'-d w 1 —_ / i �1I�`'"_.! iJ` ,�rL. �S ��.- �� i��vzv� /� � nrco�Pc�'. Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Dave )ensen ❑ ]im Kosluchar ❑ John Crelly ❑ Julie )ones ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris v Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: 0 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Comments: Name: Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues• ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location 0 Date: � �� Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 Paul Bolin ❑ Dave ]ensen ❑ Jim Kosluchar John Crelly ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues• ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape v Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildin4 Issues: 0 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues• ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements o Hydrant location 0 Comments: — W ��7�'" hc<<�S� %v ? – ,. ! r .,... b Name• '' Date• g % /l�//� Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Dave ]ensen j� ]ulie lones ❑ Ron ]ulkowski Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage �' Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape � Hardship statement/narrative' ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: �`nmmrantc� ❑ Jim Kasluchar ❑ �ayne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: � Drainage /o�-c�u- /a-u-c- ❑ Utilities %J� l( 1�.. n.�-d � fi�-�.� s,�i�r'r� ❑ Curbing requirements L�y. � o �� , O�i k� y " � , �('�l�l . ►�'-?'� l�- Fire Issues• � Ov�-t ✓� '� ❑ Truck access � �'�'s ��r `�`' ❑ Sprinkler requirements �-� � �� ❑ Hydrant location �ski a-�' ❑ °t ir °�� - � Name: � Date: �-/ (e - l ( Cr, � �V•� 0 �-;, Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circie Land Use Case• VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Dave Jensen ❑]im Kosfuchar ❑ John Crelly ❑]ulie Jones o Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Altowable square footage o Height ❑ Landscap8 o Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: � ❑ 2007 State Building Code o Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Comments: Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements 0 Fire Issues• ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location 0 Name: , . Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 o Paul Bolin ❑ Dave ]ensen ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ John Crelly ❑ ]ulie ]ones ❑ Layne Otteson '� Rachel Harris ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage . ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code o Need signed plans a SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Name• (�)V�- � Date: � � I f' �/ _ _ C["IYOF FRiDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSTfY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTDlITY (763) 572-3534 August 17, 2011 Wayne Dahl, DC 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 Dear Dr. DahL Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 15 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a variance on August 5, 2011. This letter serves to inform you that your application is not complete and is being returned to you for completion. Upon full review of your application, it was determined that you are missing information considered necessary to act upon your request. The subject property is within the Shoreland Overlay, which will require a to-scale topographical survey, showing the 100 ft. ordinary high water mark setback, the 50 ft. setback from the buffline, all structures existing and proposed on the lot and structures within 10 feet of the property line. Though a certificate of survey was submitted to the City in 2010, the copy isn't to- scale, nor does it show the proposed garage addition. A to-scale survey identifying all of the above items is required in order to consider your application complete. The City will hold your application fee in anticipation of you re-submitting a complete application in the near future. If we have not received a completed application by the end of October, the City will begin the refund process. If you have any questions rega�ding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763- 572-3595. � � i- - ��; �1►� ..�� . .:. _i Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ DaveJensen ❑ lulie 7ones o Ron Julkowski Plannin4Issues: � �( Setbacks ' �trVV�'�, ��' ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage o Height ❑ Landscape �H�rdship stateme t/narrative � � v�,��% Buildin4 Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: /`nrnmon�-c• ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smi1� �Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities o Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues• ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements _ ❑ Hydrant location ❑ r� Name• i `� Date• �.S . �. � Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ DaveJensen �( Julie ]ones ❑ Ron )ulkowski Plannina Issues: �' Setbacks �-i'hz �,�.�g,c,: �s � �- ❑ Lot coverage �� ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative '}fti ?i �.,.. . � ��d. I�c. � rv► n�l- � l � � � �.� ��i. Z g,�"_�-�") Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code o Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Comments: ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant loca�on ❑ __ _ ., �. iu `i �.__ � � .oi_ ��s � it�� Name• � ' Date: q� 3— l l Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 �Paui Bolin ❑ Dave Jensen o Jim Kosluchar ❑ John Crelly ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: �Setbacks o Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Candscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ � �PS r``e. F`�u � .� L� g- � a t�/'s�s2_ IS �+o f t.� �� .v�c�S �, • � Buildino Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: v Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Comments: �-F�`o�••� �'� �P w� t z e �'a r- ��, �..� o�v �-�c is�•. . �ate: %�l3 Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paui Bolin ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ John Crelly ❑ Julie Jones ❑ Layne Otteson o Rache! Harris o Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues• ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage o Allowable square footage v Height v Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: Ca�—�OD� State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units � ❑ �� '� _ . Stipulations: Na Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ _ Date• � � Devefoament Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #i1-02 ❑ Paui Bolin o John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ 5cott Hickok ❑ DaveJensen ❑ ]ulie ]ones ❑ Ron ]ulkowski Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Comments: n � � Sp�.c..�C'� L l.l�rr�4.� S o Jim Kosl�char ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Mary Smith o Stacy Stromberg Engineerin4 Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ _ _ Fire issues: ❑ Truck access D �C ❑ Sprinkler requirements l�l�� ❑ Hydrant location —/1r�� ❑ Name• r Date: � � 3!�� Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ John Crelly ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Scott Hickok Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Comments: Name: . Dave Jensen ❑ Jim Kosluchar 7ulie ]ones ❑ Layne Otteson Ron ]ulkowski ❑ Mary Smith ❑ Stacy Stromberg Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Date: � � / � Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR #11-02 ❑ Paui Boiin ❑ Dave Jensen ❑ Jim Kosluchar ❑ John Creliy v Julie Jones ❑ Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris o Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith � Scott Hickok ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues• � Setbacks . `�'R�OBL.�I ❑ Lot coverage � Allowable square footage �R.oy3��M ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Enaineerina Issues: ❑ Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements ❑ Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ � . . r� . i � �t �� r�� i ir� . � L " L " r • . � r' � �Lu . G .� � �► r I . _ � r � .V � [ / f/ ' ,/� i � �: ✓ - s ( �. � � ' �` • / r �► + . � �.� , i � i � i �� - � /V i Name: o _ r�✓ Date: Development Review Committee Worksheet Address: 177 Hartman Circle Land Use Case: VAR # 11-02 ❑ Paul Bolin ❑ Dave Jensen o Jim Kosluchar ❑ John Crelly ❑ Julie Jones o Layne Otteson ❑ Rachel Harris ❑ Ron Julkowski ❑ Mary Smith '� Scott Hickok � ❑ Stacy Stromberg Plannina Issues: ❑ Setbacks ❑ Lot coverage ❑ Allowable square footage ❑ Height ❑ Landscape ❑ Hardship statement/narrative ❑ Buildina Issues: ❑ 2007 State Building Code ❑ Need signed plans ❑ SAC Units ❑ Stipulations: Enaineerina Issues• v Drainage ❑ Utilities ❑ Curbing requirements 0 Fire Issues: ❑ Truck access ❑ Sprinkler requirements ❑ Hydrant location ❑ Name: �"�'�� `� \ Date• c� � � �1 � 4�,i��'��v� ��,vt; W � t i� �� -I-f ��;�., � ��; �D►�,��' � � r� j� I�, wY �, �� ,v�� r� �1 a ._ � ��.;� d� � - ��v � - t�,�, � v� - ��w�w� �� U- �� ) �� I �� -�-v ��cd� � �� I�I vl ('� �� . � � ko � . � �-� . � � � � � w �,� �. � L . �'� ►�1,�" �, � � � �- � -�'1� (�� d �Uy �� , , � �� r (,G' � 1 � C ►M,(iC � � �, U � ��.� � �� l � � CD��C� ��d � , � �,C �� , �.� �-�--� �,�.-,i � �� ✓G�� ✓� � � �� 1 � � a_ c� . �t `:�� h-�� __ �� C� �- J /; ��.� ' � ��.V� d �� _ CIlYOE F[tIDLEY FRIDLEY M[JNICIPAL CBNTER • 6431 LJI�TIVERSTTY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534 September 13, 2011 Wayne Dahi, DC 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 Dear Dr. Dahl: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local governrnent units are required to notify land use applicants within 15 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your application for a variance on September 2, 2011. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete. Your Variance application hearing and discussion wi11 take place at the City of Fridley Appea{s Commission Meeting on October 5, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue. The City of Fridley City Council will take final action on your Variance on October 24, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. Please plan to be in attendance at both of the above referenced meetinqs. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3595. Sincerely, t cy tro k Planner Beberg, Julie From: Stromberg, Stacy Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:43 PM To: Beberg, Julie Subject: DNR - Please send PH Notice to Kate Drewry Attachments: Kate Drewry.vcf j Kate [)r�wry � 0�!!R - Dep�'tmer�t �f �Jat�'al Resources � hk3rth Metro Are� H+/dre�agist � 1�'�1aPn+er �trad ' St, Rat�l, N�V 55106-6793' Stacy Stromderg Planner CiCy af Fridley 6431. Ilniversity Avenue NE Pricitey, Minnesota 55432 stromberes[�a ci.fridle, .,y mn.us Pho�ac: 763.572,3595 i�ax: 7b3.571.12$7 www.ci.fridl�ymn.us 1 Stromberg, Stacy From: Stromberg, Stacy Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:00 AM To: Beberg, Julie Subject: Description - Dahl The petitioner and property owner of 177 Harman Circle is Wayne Dahl, DC. Five variances are required in order to allow the construction of a new attached garage. 1. Variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. Variance reducing the bluff setback from the 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. Variance increasing the size of a 1�` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. Variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property from 1,400 sq. ft to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. Variance increasing the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of a home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. Stacy Strom6erg Planner City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 stromber�st�ci.fridley.mn.us Phone: 763.572.3595 Fax: 763.571.1287 www.ci.fridley.�.us Property Summary W!e�rna to the Web �iu af � - A�c�ka +�aun �s�� '. Hame Help Home -> Property Search -> Property Search Result -> Property Summary Property Details Page 1 of 1 �ogoff Printable Vereion Parcel History Linked Parcels Special Assessments Truth In Taxation Documents Sales Histo Summary Parties Values Taxes Events Recei ts LotSize NE71*238*100*220*127 Year Buflt 1957 * Lot Size: Approximate lot 5ize in feet, clockwise beginning with the direction the lot faces Printable Version Developed by Manatron, Inc. @2010 All rights reserved. Version 1.0.4043.14061 https://starlite.co.anoka.mn.us/(xim3mO55dqn1 clffsxmc4d45)/propertyresult.aspx 9/22/2011 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 177 Hartman Circle. CASE NUMBER: VAR #11-02 APPL/CANT: Wayne Dahl, DC Petitioner or re resentative must attend the A eals Commission meetin . PURPOSE: Petitioner is requesting a variance to: Five variances are required in order to allow the construction of a new attached garage. 1. Variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. Variance reducing the bluff setback from the 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. Variance increasing the size of a 1St accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. Variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property from 1,400 sq. ft to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. Variance increasing the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of a home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. LOCATION OF 177 Hartman Circle PROPERTY AND LEGAL Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition except that part described DESCR/PT/ON: as follows; beginning at most easterly point of common line between Lots 19 and 20 said Block 2, thence southwesterly along said common line 15 feet, thence easterly to a point on Hartman Circle 6 feet south of point of beginning, thence northerly along Hartman Circle to point of beginning, subject to easement of record. DATE AND T/ME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEAR/NG: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. The Appeals Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PART/CIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPEC/AL Hearin im aired ersons lannin to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS; Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Callins at 763-572-3500 no later than September 28, 2011. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Stacy Stromberg, Planner, at 763-572-3595. *PROPOSED CITY The proposed City Council meeting date for this item will be on COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 24, 2011. *This date is subject to change depending on the outcome of the Appeals Commission meeting. Please confirm City Council date prior to attending City Council meeting. (Please note residential variances, if approved by Appeals Commission do not go on to City Council only if they are denied. Commercial variances do go on to City Council weather they are a roved or denied b the A eals Commission. Mailed — September 23, 2011 � c�ryoF Community Development Departmen � FR/DLEY Public Hearing Notice 6g�� 6906 rn 6�� N � p rn 6901 6g0� s`90y � � `° '° � 69TH WAY 6901 1qg ,n .- n 6880 ? ? � 6835 48 = 6825 153 129 6831 6820 � 6821 157 N � � ^ 125 6827 6814 � 6817 �L 161 U � �z� 6823 6810 � 6813 Z 160 �Zp U �� 6819 6806 � 6809 165 SQ z C 170 110 Q 113 6815 6802 6807 169 � o ,os �,09 LOCKE LK 680, � 0 173 = °' � 6811 44 Ci� 100 = 105 �� R �� 6795 � � t7i �.� � .A� 101 7 181 185 rn 193 C/ R 6�85 O 6775 � � i , 6755 �� f�� 6745 W C:i.Y•Y7 SOURCES Fridley Engineering Fridley GIS Anoka County GIS Map Date: September 19, 2011 6664 6g� GY�7 85 98 666� 666, 6p0 6 54 Nw a� z9 35 41 M� 4) s "��J � b0 h r,�9 �7- 6 � � s y S ' �Y-� p � � j ✓ FZ�G� G� � °66 ��2 � 0 9 N p M 0 � 55 C � m v s �� °� � M � �� 66%/ � . Variance Request, VAR #11-02 Petitioner: Wayne Dahl, DC Address: 177 Hartman Circle NE N w�L S ANOKA COUNTY OF 325 EAST MAIN ST ANOKA, MN 55303-0000 READELANDREA 106 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 HEROLD ELIZABETH 169 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 THURSTON GREGORY W 8� CHERYLL L 100 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DAHL WAYNE E 177 HARTMAN GIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 BAUMER ROBERT J 161 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 ANOKA COUNTY 325 EAST MAIN ST ANOKA, MN 55303-0000 RAKOS LAURIE A 190 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 DUNN JAMES 185 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 ANOKA, COUNTY OF 193 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 GUDDING JOYCE 181 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SIMMELINK JOHN 165 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 WANGMO NGODUP 8 CHOEGYAL L 160 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 GJEVRE KIRK A 180 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 HINSVERK JOHN K 8� MARLYS J 170 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SAMPSON HELEN M 110 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 NAWROCKI DALE 173 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 SLACK JONI 191 HARTMAN CIR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432-0000 �'' � VARIANCE APPLICATION "Hardship Statement" Wayne E. Dahl, DC,177 Hartman Circle, Fridley, MN 55432 August 5, 2011 The Variance Application requests a detailed narrative with a hardship statement as "statutorily defined." The current Minnesota Statute on variances, Chapter 394.27, subdivision 7, was amended in the most recent legislative session to remove "hardship" as a requirement and replace it with "practical difficulties" as the new statutory definition. "Practical Difficulties" is statutorily defined as: "the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not created by the landowner; and the variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." My "plight" is I have a large home (1,900 sq. ft first floor) on a beautifull+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. I pay significant properry taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created my myself as landowner. I am not requesting a variance on the size of the garage because the size of the garage is in compliance with the code. Paragraph (1) of Fridley Code 205.07 (B) (1) states: "A private garage is the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100qb of the f►rst floor area of the dwelling unit � a maximum of 1,000 square fee� (emphasis mine). Therefore, a 1,900 square foot garage is allowed because my first floor square footage is 1,900 square feet and will become 2,500 square feet once the current garage is converted into living space. Paragraph (2) of the same section on Accessory Uses also states: "A second garage or accessory building of over 120 square feet provided the following criteria are met: (a) The combined, floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exce11,400 square fee�" Being I will have only one accessory building, I therefore do not fall under the requirements of Paragraph (2). As to the river setback requirement of 100 feet, I have spoken with Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Anoka County, Department of Natural Resources. She informed me that the DNR would not object to compromising a river setback requirement if the local municipality approved the variance and it was not an egregious noncomformance like damaging wildlife habitat. Kate Drewry can be reached at 651-259-5753. The bluff on the river where the garage will be built is about 30 feet high, so requiring 100 foot setback is does not further protect the river and thus this is not an egregious noncompliance. When I appealed to the City Council to approve my constructing a storage shed on this bluff a few years ago, I provided photos of over 75 properties on the river that had structures at less than 100 feet setback and the City waived this setback for my shed. 1 M ` w As to the bluff setback requirement of 50 feet, the location of the new garage is further away from the river than the existing pre-approved shed that will be removed when the garage is constructed, thus bringing the property more into compliance with the code. There are other homes on Hartman Circle that have had additions over the past 5 years that border the Mississippi River or the Rice Creek tributary that did not require a full survey as my property has, and whose additions were allowed to be in conflict with setback requirements without any objection by the City. I can provide addresses if desired. The ideal location for the garage is on the west side of the house connected to the current driveway. Although there is space to build my garage on the east side of my residence, it cannot be done without blocking the view of the Mississippi River now enjoyed by my neighbor to the east. It would also require tearing up my new 175 foot concrete driveway and building a garage requiring a drive up ramp and a basement so that the garage is at the same level as the first floor of the house. This does not beautify the neighborhood in anybod�s estimation because the garage on the east side would be not be as architecturally pleasing. In addition, it would negatively affect overall property value as it would reduce the value of the property to the east having lost its view of the river and reduce the value of my properly with an out-of-place looking garage. The size of the new garage proposed is totally compatible with my extra large 46,000 square foot lo� I have spent the past 31 years continually improving my property: 1. I have built an all stone wall along the Mississippi River to prevent erosion of the river bank; 2. I have enhanced the landscape with flowers, plants and trees; 3. I have constructed two 30 foot high bird roosts for eagles and other birds flying the Mississippi River that benefits Manomin Park.; 4. I have added a 600 square foot patio on the east side of the home; 5. I have added a new deck on the south side of the home; 6. I have a new 175 foot concrete driveway where visitors can park without occupying space on the street in front of neighbors homes; and 7. I have done extensive remodeling to the interior of the home adding a number of beams to reinforce the structure, refurbishing the interior etc. This is a unique opportunity to improve the neighborhood in a very attractive fashion. The Hartman Circle neighborhood which has been my home for 31 years is one of Fridley's great treasures, with its location on the Mississippi River, Rice Creek and adjacent to Manomin Park. It is my plan to continue to improve and maintain my property to the benefit of all of my neighbors so that this treasure is preserved for many years in the future. � VARIANCE APPLICATION "Proposed Use of Building" Wayne E. Dahl, DC,177 Hartman Circle, Fridley, MN 55432 August 5, 2011 The proposed use of the building is to function as a garage for my cars, lawn tractor and tools as well as my collection of antique automobiles that are currently parked in my driveway. South of my property is a Rice Creek tributary that has been a muddy creek bed for over 10 years due to debris from Locke Lake dam improvements clogging the inlet to this tributary. My entire south boundary is Manomin Park. Its west boundary is 200 feet of frontage on the Mississippi River. The entire property is over one acre. � My home's first floor is 1,900+ square feet The plan is to convert my existing 600 sq. i�. garage into living space and add a new garage of 1,900 square feet on the west side. By converting the existing garage to living space for an arts and crafts room, the total living space of the home will become approximately 2,500 square feet on the first floor. The new garage will be of an architecturally pleasing design. It will have cedar shakes siding, wood trim and windows to match the existing residence. It will have a commercial grade built-up composite roof. The garage doors are designed to be reminiscent of carriage house garage doors to minimize the impact typical garage doors have on a residence. The new arts and crafts room will be built to code using similar materials used in the exisCing residence with the same exterior of cedar shakes. This proposed addition to my home will be a further improvement to the housing stock of the neighborhood and will also generate additional tax revenues for the City. ��. 'K�_. ` s n,�i' i� �- . FF �� -- s: ` _ .F.:r � v ¢,� . � , ��.�y .x_. ,.;x� - — � "'' `' . � � � i y _� �_ .�� t � � �_ �� :.a. . i; .-�--� , �� ,, i � � . � �� . -� ��. - . � � _. y � - � � � �� ; + t. � � j d � `. •-. � � --� y4�-�.1�ik—�� yia� `y� � _� ,J�[ . � . � � � � �� J - • +a � � r. ._ �—� -�- w�'� _�-.:�_:_�_ . � r; �, �� q� ` � 3 �c � �,}• '�i' �� I � ��:•: 4 � .:.,. �Y��'?�.,.,.Y r_�... ' \\�,_ ` �I G``' 5��:�� :'1��_ ��.-,� ��t� '� # -.! _ '..�. -:. p ��\`\� i �� v�-- .. ^ . •� �� R e � i �. "� � � '., .... r �` w +. ' .. . . � .. � *� � \ �� _ � _ : - ��Y�L. �i� �;*�1 .� ,� � �+c .> � '' Q �`� � .- � � '{ye�i`;��'=l � _ & • -, � � � 1 �� . �.�\ !,� �' . � �IA �` � � �'�\ . � M a � `xy � . . � n... �-.. • ' i'�' .• _ . . . � � ��..�\ _- ,. - , � _ .._� _�� : :_ , — ., . �– — --•�.� . � �,. ; . .� _ _ ' s-,�– — - •..,� _ ,, r . � � -- � ,�_ 1` � �� - !�� ' .,.Et . I _— --___ , ' �° ,a�` . "` � - ,_ ' - - 's • -. r . ;�"(��, a. . � f . � . _ _ _ . . _ __ _ °-�-T �' Y J� _ s. _ .__ — "a S f . _ . '1s�M�1�'" _ . -- .�''.. �t�.,��F'� ` _ _ � s T� � = y �;�� - –, n �'N��r t��.' � � c� � �� - aL lJl � i�rr.t,$.� e� �f� ♦ '1 ' '.�� ' ��Il��..'� � �J' ��,� 'e = �, �'r, +� -� * �:� z � . »,�; ' - y�� -1 , y .- y a .. �� ij� %Y'_ ` i� ..A � '''�' � / t� � '�� v �6 ' . .��. .�A d.: � `��` - ' .S `�-�' ..I�i � k � 1-� �i4��'. � � u, , :�F . R'�:a�``°r�"., + � p � � �a E ��1F �.�: yf,'�,. �^ �p� °�' - a` 4.' _ . Y � l: `� } � , , �.J. ' y� ✓ ...,!►er � f . . �i7�� + , ;, +e�� .f _ . .t.- ., ii` -� 9'ai�i ._ � ��; � = J � � . _ r .. ,3i Z . �11 .'�+�- � t�' � � � � Q+ f . <.-a :. . . ' .. .y : . ��'�' . 3 1 �.�' � �� E . M �' _ / 7 3G j. -v`"!� ,'`�.-. �..-�y <. � -� �. �c.�" t��+� ; ��," �-s .� . _ . '��'.` �c . � � ° �'/�y�y]1��!s' /"� ��../�w �C�.(,1 ��T ; 'L � � �� + ��.\ �pSisfJf �jr. � I. - . �� a'�x:� .d 4 I'�1Y� � � ��€+R i.` . _ ' � <.' .. . ..' �,� ,�.a.��`�Ey,.�� I 6 � r� � x. � •'ti '`� S • ' �' . '* `�r 'S+� -� ' r � "�i!+�"9 ~ r_�yc.� j ^� Jf( 1 \ i +/ r u tA <.` `k 1'. -i.wP.• .r,+., i�'�"ry�„A .��K.y _ � � � 5�.i� � . - � Ac� � �4 i ,y ?� � . 3� � -., .3f �-:' � ' ' * �� K, / y � +� - � � � ;y}� ,�,� � � � - _ ri � � T / , . . '� 'X`f +• � � � . . . .�-� g {i +\/' //�.� ��r� ,� i y - �, Rl.�?' � rl,y. - } ,� �' . s . s ndlyC' �. �' �'' i r . �r � wr ` t ��'a„c � �:w�. �. ..� ' � w � ' � �' '.p��.�. . . - , ~.�•�' r� s� j d R � � o ��.. d �i...�,.''�� r:. s�,'i6, j q 4 � ' � Jy I � . %l t y� � j, � { _'t � ��C I�' � � � ' � �� a4 � � �� ^,�� 'S 'i6� qrk _.- ., ' . ° hd�! � . J �" � � �' v ` ^�� ' „S 31rt�'s� � � � �` ��MC � y �. �� • ¢ '� 4 "� - � M �,�y > �?� � / _ _ F �� o`= - ��tT�. �� 'tv � . � Y � � � � ` � \\` J •� , . . Y;FY n�� r A?� . ' r, .� ..� �Y � ��"_�.?� �i�.. .� •.e � _ J�, .. 4 •�..� _ � _ ��/j'' a�� f �.� t� �Y4�.ftir�t Z . t� i',�' 1 �1 � , . � _-- w•� � � h��J�: yl�lfl;,y � r _yr••N3s�� i ��' .,-y u. '� 9� M I._�,r i� �F�F4 Gi ,i�c �llhi. r .i.:� x i_4..e y.. i '��f 4 �,e�y �i �.9 ��1�� p . � 7'6;5j'i') ,�� A a.� � f . ' , a , :; R � �`; �,� `" . �+ w 'r 4 � � x � ;�,�,. ` x �� ,�+'!y. ��f> ",Cg� Sk F � � � i�.! �'Y,� �1..1, .�1�` � i yP�q�1' � '� � .. }1 .'�'r ��:�pl Jt . 3i'�� d� i� �d �`�. r r� � �� ''�� j�� i�� ,� � ,:, ,. ; � _: ��;- �� -�,, , � �� .,.� ,� �: . r�. r,r� � � ' . , ' : j ��Lr�� ,�` � . 1 ..<1�:��el � ,,`. ae °`sl�. .., . r, � ,: . . pYri4p� � a ,"p. Y�ia J�a, 4 '� ^ A�,. � • ��. �• ;'� . ,.� .�I�Q � ,.. 1� • y � . n � N d � ^ q'.�" � �' �� t � �'`':�t � '�'�"+' . u .. .r - � :"#^ '�� _ - --� ' r ,� � \, � ; ,�.�/ � � ' `��y1 ' 4� � L. pl � � �� '4 � ' Sl ! ! l ! /�) 4} `� � LYf1` � /4y � � . � �` .0 �+� ! r a t '' y \r..�_ ic�.-' ? r,� � .� � k7..,�, ?�- �i,A ' �'��-f "'� -: � . .I �� T� ��3�, ��' �+l-�S.a�� "�`��,,4' " r � :i�in� „,_ ��. % .. 4 � t» a� �� ---. z �, � _ �s -i¢ .. _ ~ �3 :, � .J '� Y A �„K.��y�: . ' i �� . . ' � '� � �� ,� � y� . C �-�Sc a 3 t - � .�rr.� • Y' � -.4' � r� �� kY ,7 d• 1 � i e t , � y ti � \ r�t�'�' � '� ' �� 1`�a'- a`�r�E�1 >4�=r�j�a '+�F � � k'�` ' .,,� M �V�_i��Pi��5�r':,,,,> y� �'� ��J;a Ll )T.ep{ - ' . 3' � �t � C . ?i . r �' '� �� r / , t �,� � � � ��1'�;,,j � ✓ — ,�. aL:.: � '�' /� ' �.' , F. �,°�, �i, ,��.-. yr� . � ^ � - i-� •r��;�•t�. �� 7 .� _ Z �,d , - i � r � ��y� .i �1��yyy ;v, �yd,-�� J � �`I�iy ;V4 �'y1 Fyl r, + � �•. .�•,� r \ '' . ,� ^ � ` � � � d.: � �6� l � cT . �� r y ' y � i � � ;Y . . . �. �i\ ^t �� \='7 eL�.'+� C t �I . � .�i... L-..v �1:� ` `<:� i �}'�� art' i A 'r � ci. �,..�,� r._ '�'3 ei �� ''v' e�� - ij.. y'++Z �-' �.{ .��` .p�.�`� '\, ��.� 4=� � I� ,w 1. t�-'��\ (�\ ' ,'f .- ' �� . r�iL" � � � - ., * ° _ 4 � ' �, ' w 'i'y.16��`v • � ✓ ,� � ii� .,k �� ('?� �+�1�� '� � �� , ,.�.�"' , # . � i� .. y. . . _ � . � �+�y`� � ,� �?� 4 e`�� a �� .`+� . - ,.''- , � . . i � f y'��G f �� 3c,�.' �' +,.-h+ ��l%y` �' �� .. �S .� - j� . �`�.T �,�. � ��_� b...� � .,r,� � . , �..%- , ' �=w!`.s*- �e _ ' -. ,,� °'� 3 ;�.i3'F'��R �1�� Tw�.. (�� . .. .. . y� � � � h � �r -+ ��'�° ��._. � r"'5.� � � -,�•, �, �t.•. � s � . � . ,�: , �' `4�--�.-. �y.• :�"_'M'��"- "'. . �'�. t... �-.: t e� � . r� ,z� �ist. . �. �"�iITI��`" ��\L � i �-a�l .-7�';G � � �� ?'� yW.' `1�y ,a -"'AZ t_ r e� � `� ''+�" -, Y L.' . ' �f' "t ' -c°" *„P � - �� ' Y � �Cf �r � A '� �4".l �"� �T�-,iA . � t `L.• J/ �+ l� s1�� >LrG� / i �A�I k 1 +j�Q '�a �� ' " +� }� � `��„ �... �y� �y�i= $ �ii� ��1 -'- � t �, ��Y��t:.:�� _��.R-". , - � `.=_�`l �-� ' � �p� i�,*I �i�� . :' : /A�3� . . , /"��, �t �f�•J\� t � �7�/ .�� /'%f� =I�- �1 �.i� � � � A: 6� /. . nRl� . 'ti _ ,- �R�� . -' ��1Y �' '� �3' ' -ii. �} �� i l. � \ . W '\F' _ .11�� i �. �.� �. :_\ a>^ � . 1 . �-v. i ,' .''� ��, ,y. `. �'� `Lb �• C�� ," �''.. - ..-t �� , � � 1F,: � �T � !�r��' �.-lr�� .: �.�,.� ry .,:i �, _ ��•� �� .. '�., ^ � JS" y; �: ' �i ek�� ^ {� i �} t> ' i�. -.: C`�`.' � . 'N `�_: ly"�_Y: "�i �� _ �a a ��.r .v Y�. 1�� ±�.)�". � ��i.} f�'� _ �p :r� 3t , ^��'. l_+ �� , � � . ��'��. �t( _ � � rb- . ,<. . �M 4 I�\ � `,,. �; � _ ,.. � ,I � .> ` K� `� �' - = � • ' . :.. . y i � �„ _a -� ' . i� '" � " C � � .. �'n A _ .� / _ ic �. �„�� _ — ¢ _ � t � � .. ',s,y� » � F , � • f" / ' '� � ,'iM . a y tFi- �__ •'3 � �L j i_ J / � ' �1. �. . - _ q �. -./c v s!;� ��.Y. � � f! '_ � i �# ' 'f'�,�'°� � tHI?,�" �"° _ � T� �► � }�- • � m. ��- yL.��` �,� ' ./ ' � �' Y a � � � t � y�, � �'p J._ Yt,y�� . .�:5 �� ..T.: ��-�� \ )_-,.. :�" � H .. ' `- ` `� rl F lr � y — 'e' f '��R,7'�i I '� ^ �t i . -`� " ' � �, y�, �1 (t�kr ��i � �'. '� �l''�� ..� ' .Sp � _ � � T �`:�.'t. ri�.. �y, t . ^Y lic.iN;•, , �2:+--I.� �!{ `A�T�'�._ ..Y�- x��.k.H'' . u�.•�C'Tti .. v -. i ��s[� �" � � " ,+�r < "'9 "`; � `y r .. .' l :a �. y< � w$4 4 � '�f+ .'y y � ' z .�" � ` ��p _ z � � � - .i : �, � � 16 '�. � ' G r: ti�c'�{C�5 ��~ � *'.ti�} ""S/'K.�,K . � tY-. E '�' e��, ''S r 7 . r � � '! f � t . , "�-a. A �� f'�r�K..'ti • � �� s �33•v i'� '�• ��aL+., �,F `'' .5. .� . �� ?.ti Gt � u �y 1 , r . � s. o'� Z� { '�`I c^t fi'� �T + � t��.J ..�._ ;I', �4 2� i . S �t ' � .�i .t :,� �S t � .�! Q �! :� r .. l ql '�^ . ✓ t . ' rT . . .� ; l J i'_� a ..' ,+ r ^� ��_< .�I • .i•"�.� , :��..` $'�;�•p.. .�y s� � ��- '�� ' ` ±�'�, 'f �' .� .z y � } ".'!`� i � 1 A...-.. ' } .. F� �" e^'� y� . ' �,y . '�x j.- ' '�� 1` `� � � 4 � , . " 1Y�� '�� 6�� ., . �f �, s`�:. 1 ' -�� . _ �—`� °4 S " �MY �%� i �-�� ' � /f y ��. �s^'.� �.. �+ � ��+� k 8 � � . Y �� ' � t . . . ' 1 � � � � � 3. - ` j _ '_ ,��,�'��+�` �� _ ��y�yi�,`�T-'�.+��4 P�.E y.,� � �. . B �.. j i� �f ,,�� . � _ � l��py�.,. ��.. �a-�� .,7 � - s",�.s' . . _ - __ - - _ ... - .. y a � '° _ _ _ - ,I _ ��l4�. �:- a! .. ��;" � - � � � ,:.}r `�� . . � ��'�� ' �W:'� ./►` .. - . .... �._ _ �� --,•� � � ' _ —�a.,.. _: ' . �' .. .... ._... i , . �,,. . . � , �•+ _ �� _ �h�. r.,n(( � ,rve.. ��, 1 1„y�. 7 . ..,. `` � � '_. n�pY ,':. r .,t�l.r'� Y � �ww� �[,�vy 1' ' , .� r�lY1Md'n t� , 7 `tfr 't R�` �.. 44�r" :at�4� 'k`! > � . a ' ^ . ....M�� j''..i � . \ / �' j � ' �� , �'y' � i . . . i_ x' w"* f' . ��j ` 1\��y{��' �'T��/�b � (�: V Y r � j� � " -. r� i� > �4 y. , `i� /�1' `I� � j%' ✓�. . J/j7�/ �%(((/ ♦ ,/+ � 6 �.'� '- � q . _ � �S / �� , / �/r_ � w { 1W d.ir . � �t � 1 � - ^'�Ib�'�'� l� � � � � +C 1 : � a e- :�r �y � ,., �� -V .I �� d1��R� a� - y,�r �' �'� � ,C � " ,�.'.• • '�-+�'� ��='� r1�°Cq'ji �% 4' ",I�«, �° , .� � . c ,t.� �.4 � . ��#' ,S � ` �,�; � � � ` � � �� - ,: . "• -� - ° � • � , � �� r �:��,1` �� 4 ,48 � r' . � �. ?-. •�c' `��• ' .., s w,= `. ;�„ ' �# ' � � y � �� z � a ��`:�� ,�,. ��sal�'�� ',,:�i �€� .�a �!t ; � °" y(E ..' � r � ' � � 1�.. •�� . , � � �� '''c: � yf �:. S � � � ' ��` . . � � � e �1 y. � +S�a� ?.9s��-�fh A ..�-r ' � � "' `-_ � �R��i ;..�i�. C��..�� O O J] O ' f:l' �� s c�' .. .'�I � x Y4� 1 h��,v �.^ �E �f.'i C .-�'. �.'_ ` t .� � . r i��1�� , J ° � Ls .�. r �r � . a •'.Ar� � i� C v �.. � i,=i .' t '' '.' y i �'�'� ` � J '� � � �� 7; � � ..; r� �� % y �`'' . f � _� �� .� �( vl ° Cf «] r1y� � �� _ > � � i � �j . � / ��' , , _ . �'; c ,c � @ , r �SL..,�17�'_. 4 r�, �'� . y r ;r�* �:,i � � "` •r� �fi.. ,. ��. ��' �i��,-s �"^ . .:3"�., . _ra_ � - - .� ' Stromberg, Stacy From: Drewry, Kate (DNR) [kate.drewry�state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:02 PM To: Stromberg, Stacy Subject: RE: 177 Hartman Circle Stacy: Thank you for the information on the proposed variance at 177 Hartman Circle. The request involves the construction of a detached garage within 40' of the top of the Mississippi River bluff and within the 100' setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of the River . The parcel and proposed development are within the City's Shoreland Overlay District and also within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District, both of which prohibit development on or within 40' of bluff and/or within 100 feet of the OHW. DNR offers the following general criteria and guidance to ensure the protection of bluffs and shorelands as provided by the state MRCCA and Shoreland programs and City Ordinances: 1. Do practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property? Were the unique circumstances not created by persons presently having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone? Consideration should be given as to whether the development as proposed is reasonable given the site limitations, whether the variance provides minimal relief or substantial deviation from the bluff and OHW regulations, and whether other feasible alternatives exist that would reduce the degree of noncompliance. For example, why couldn't the proposed garage be moved outside of the setbacks in its current configuration or reconfigured and/or reduced in size to meet the setbacks? 2. Does the property owner or authorized applicont propose to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan? Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual property owner against the purpose of the local zoning regulation for protecting the public interest. Minnesota Statutes, section 116G and Executive Order 79-19, which designated the MRCCA, require local governments to adopt MRCCA plans and ordinances in order to: (1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River and adjacent lands that the legislature finds to be unique and valuable state and regional resources for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state, region, and nation; (2) prevent and mitigate irreversibie damages to these state, regional, and natural resources; (3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River ar►d adjacent lands for public use and benefit; (4) protect and preserve the Mississippi River as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and (5) protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi River corridor. The City must evaluate the proposed variance in light of these policies and regulations and determine whether it is reasonable and appropriate to locate the proposed structure this far into the setbacks, and whether the variance will put the property to use in a manner suitable to the site conditions. � 3. Will the proposed variance alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity? If granted, will the proposed variance will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties? Consider the size of the proposed development; the extent of disturbance and alterations to natural topography, vegetation, and drainage; and how it relates to the visual character and hydrology of the river corridor. The proposed structure will add considerable impervious coverage to the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecotogical function of the river bluff system and increase runoff that can lead to slope instability, erosion and sedimentation. The visual impact of the structure as viewed from the river should also be evaluated. All of the above criteria should be satisfied to grant the variance, and formal finding in support of the variance should be adopted. If findings support granting the variance, then the City should consider the adverse impacts on the river and river bluff system and place appropriate conditions on the approval to mitigate them. As provided by state law, conditions must be directly related and roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. We are aware of a number of communities that have implemented mitigation scoring systems and would be happy to share them with you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Fee{ free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Kate Drewry North Metro Area Hydrologist DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5753 Fax: 651-772-7977 kate.drewry�astate.mn.us www.mndnr.�ov From: Stramberg, Stacy jmailto:Stromb�rgSCalci.fridfey.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 20114:31 PM To: Drewry, Kate (DNR) Subject: 177 Hartman Circle Hi Kate, The City has received a variance request from Dr. Wayne Dahl at 177 Hartman Circle NE in Fridley to construct a new attached garage. Several variances, including variances to the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water line and 40 ft. bluff line are being requested in order to construct this structure. I've attached the certificate of survey for the property as well as Dr. Dahl's narrative. You wilf also be receiving a public hearing notice within the next few days. 1 would appreciate a response from you by September 2gtn. Thank you, Stacy Strom6erg Planner City of Fridley CITY OF FRIDLEY ZONING CODE CHAPTER 205.32 O-7. SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT (Ref 1224) 205.32 O-7 SHORELAND OVERLAY DiSTRICT 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT A. The unregulated use of shorelands in the city affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise use and development of shorelands of public waters. B. Statutory authorization. These shoreland regulations are adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 103F, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minn. Stat. Ch. 462. C. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Code shall apply to shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in Section 20532.4.B of this Code. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the governing body, be exempt from this Code. . D. Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the grading and filling of any shoreland area; and the cutting of shoreland vegetation shall be in full compliance with the terms of this Code and other applicable regulations. E. District application. The shoreland overlay district shall be superimposed (overlaid) upon all the zoning districts as identified in Chapter 205 of this Code as existing or amended by the text and map of this Code. The regulations and requirements imposed by the shoreland overlay district shall be in addition to those established by the base zoning district which jointly apply. Under joint application of the districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. F. Exemption. A structure or use which was lawful before adoption of this Chapter, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of the shoreland overlay district, may be continued subject to Section 205.04.3 of this Code. 2. DISTRICTBOUNDARIES The boundaries of the shoreland permit overlay district within the city consists of the first tier of riparian lots abutting a protected lake or tributary identified in Section 205.32.4.B of this Code. The specific boundaries of the shoreland permit overlay district are shown on the official Fridley Shoreland Overlay District Map in the Fridley Zoning Code. Fridley City Code 3. DEFINITIONS Chapter 205.323.I For the purpose of this Chapter certain terms and words are hereby defined: Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words in the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular; the word "building" shall include the word "structure"; and t�ie word "lot" shall include the word "plot"; and the word "shall" is mandatory and not directory; and the word "including" shall mean "including, but not limited to". For the purpose of this district the following definitions shall apply: A. Accessory Building. A subordinate buiiding or use which is located on the same lot as the principal building or use and is necessary or incidental to the conduct of the principai building or use. B. Bluff. Those steep slopes lying between the ordinary high water mark and the River Corridor boundary having an angle of ascent from the river of more than twelve percent (12%) from the horizontal. C. Bluffline. A line delineating the top of the bluff connecting the points at which the angle of ascent becomes less than twelve percent (12%). More than one (1) bluffline may be encountered. D. Bluff Impact Zone The area between the Bluffline and forty (40) feet inland from the bluff: E. Commission. The City of Fridley Planning Commission. F. Commissioner. The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resouices of the State of Minnesota. G. CounciL The Fridley City CounciL H. Critical Area. The area known as the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area designated by the Governor in the Executive Order No. 130. Development. � The making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land including reconstruction; alteration of the size of any structure; alteration of the land; alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lake or pond; a commencement of dritling (except to obtain soil samples); mining or excavation; demolition of a structure; clearing of land as an adjunct to construction; deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land; the dividing of land into two (2) or more parcels. Fridley City Code Chapter 20532.4.A. J. Impervious Surface. A constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil, and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than existed prior to development. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads. K. Lot Coverage. The amount of impervious surface on a lot. L. Ordinary High Water Level. Minnesota State Statute 103G.005, subdivision 14 defines ordinary high water level as the boundary of waterbasins, watercourses, public waters, and public waters wetlands, and: (1) the ordinary high water level is an elevation delineating the highest water level that has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial; � (2) for watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel; and (3) for reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. M. Shoreland Shoreland means land located within the following distances from the ordinary high water elevation of public waters: (]) land within 1,000 feet from the normal high watermark of a lake, pond, or flowage; and (2) land within 300 feet of a river ot stream or the landward side of a floodplain delineated by ordinance on the river or stream, whichever is greater. N. Shore Impact Zone The area between the ordinary high water mark and fifty (50) feet inland from the ordinary high water mark. O. Structure. Anything constructed or erected which requires location on or underground or atta.chment to something having location on or underground. This includes an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether of a temporary or permanent character. 4. SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A. Public waters. The public waters of Fridley have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the DNR Protected Waters Inventory Map for Anoka County, Minnesota. Fridley City Code Chapter 20532.S.B. B. Official map. The shoreland permit district for the waterbodies listed below shall be shown on the Fridley Zoning Map. (1) Lakes Recreational Development Lakes Moore Lake Spring Lake General Development Lakes Locke Lake Harris Pond Farr Lake Natural Environment Lakes Protected Waters Inventory I.D. # 2-75P 2-71 P Protected Waters Inventory I.D. # 2-77P 2-684 W 2-78P Protected Waters Inventory I. D. # Public Water in Springbrook Park 2-688P (2) Rivers and streams Rivers From To Mississippi River Sec 3, T30N, R24W Sec 34, T30N, R24W Tributary Streams Norton Creek Oak Glen Creek Rice Creek Springbrook Creek Stoneybrook Creek 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Building permit required. A permit is required for the construction of buildings or building additions (and including such related activities as construction of decks and signs), and those grading and filling activities not exempted by. this Code that occur within the shoreland district. Application for a building permit shall be filed with the zoning administrator or any staff persons designated by the city manager on an official application form of the city, accompanied by a fee as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Code. Where required by law, the building permit application shall be forwarded to the applicable watershed district for review and comment. The application shall include the necessary information so that the zoning administrator can determine the site's suitability for the intended use. B. Variance. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Section 205.05.6 of this Code. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this Code. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the underlying zoning district in which the subject property is located. Fridley City Code C. Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources. Chapter 205.32.8.A.(3) (1) Pub[ic hearings. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, o� special uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plats must include copies of the subdivision/plat. (2) Approval. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or special uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent by the City to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmaxked within ten days of final action. 6. LAND USE DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS Allowed land uses within the shorefand district shall be determined by the underlying zoning district, as listed within Chapter 205 of City Code. 7. LOT AREA AND WIDTH STANDARDS Lot area and width standards for residential development shall be regulated per the underlying zoning district in Chapter 205 of City Code. 8. PLACEMENT, DESIGN, AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES A. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows: (1) Required setbacks. All required rear yard, side yard and front yard setbacks shal) be met per the underlying zoning district. (2) Ordinary high water level setback. Structure setbacks (in feet) from the ordinary high water leveL Classes of Public Waters Structure Setbacks General Development Lake 50 feet Natural Environment Lake 150 feet Recreational Development Lake 75 feet River 100 feet Tributary Stream 50 feet (3) Required bluff setback. The following setback shall be applied, regardless of the classification of the water body: Fridley City Code Classes of Land Structure Setback Top of Bluff 40 feet Chapter 205.32.8.B.(3)b. (4) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (5) Height of structures. Maximum allowable height for all structures shall be regutated per underlying zoning district in Chapter 205 of City Code. B. Shoreland alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (1) Vegetation alteration. Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water- oriented accessory structures or facilities provided that: ((i)). The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not sabstantially reduced. ((ii)). Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved. ((iii)). The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards and the removal of plants deemed noxious under the Minnesota Noxious Weed Law. (2) Building permit. Grading and filling a.nd excavations necessary for the construction of structures and driveways under validly issued building permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate shoreland grading and filling permit. (3) Land alteration permit. Notwithstanding (2) above, a land alteration permit will be required for: a. The movement of more than ten cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones. b. The movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. Fridley City Code �i,/�-� rvwsd rtitx 2.t �l�t -f2. l '�'�L� .� �� ',° �i.�/�'�� , „�v�.�y � Chapter 205.32.8.B.(4)j. (4) Conditions. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of building permits, land alteration permits, special use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any type 2-8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional yualities of the wetland (This evaluation shall also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as a watershed district, the Minnesota. Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers): ((i)) Sediment and pol3utant trapping and retention. ((ii)) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage. ((iii)) Fish and wildlife habitat. ((iv)) Recreational use. ((v)) Shoreline or bank stabilization. ((vi)) Noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. f. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must create finished slopes of less than 3:1 slope. h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. i. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner under Minn. Stat. § 103G.245. j. Alterations of topography � only be allowed if they are Csg�ial- a verse y a�feoi �clJa�ent er r�ea�by properties. e�-� Y 5� C�-p�ov � c;' �- C r�-�- �- • � � Fridley City Code Chapter 205.32.8.C.(2)a.((iv)) k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the rip rap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the rip rap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. Must be done in accordance with other State and Federal regulations. Permit from DNR is required. (5) Connections to public waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, must be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after written authorization has been obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources approving the proposed connection to public waters. C. Stormwater management. The following general and specific standazds shall apply: (1) General standards. a. When possible, existing natural drainage-ways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. b. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handte stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, vazious types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities. (2) Specific standards. a. Impervious surface lot coverage shall not exceed 35 percent of the lot area, except as a variance, which shall comply with the following standards: ((i)) All structures, additions or expansions shall meet setback and other requirements of this Code. ((ii)) The lot shall be served with municipal sewer and water. ((iii)) The lot shall provide for the collection and treatment of stormwater in compliance with Chapter 208 of City Code if determined that the site improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All development plans shall require review and approval by the ciry engineer and the �eF�9�ingwate�ed (ZCWD -�st�ict.. ((iv)) Measures to be taken from the treatment of stormwater runoff and/or prevention of stormwater from directly entering a public water. The measures may include, but not be limited to the following: Fridley City Code Chapter 205.32.9.C. (A) Appurtenances as sedimentation basins debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps. (B) Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on storm sewer inlets. (C) Use where practical, oil skimmi �d�ic or um� catchibas'n�. �Q, (D) Direct drainage.away from the � an m o perv�ous, ��s�i�E��ugh site grading, use of gutters and down spouts. (E) Construction sidewalks of partially pervious raised materials such as decking which has natural earth or other pervious material beneath or between the planking. (F) Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration, e.g., sand and gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration swales graded to lead into them. (G) Install berms, water bars, or terraces which temporarily detain water before dispersing it into pervious area. b. When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. c. New constructed stormwater outfall to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming or surface debris before discharge. (3) Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this section may continue, but they will be managed according to section 205.32.S.B of this Code with the following exceptions: a. Decks are allowed as a conforming use provided all of the following criteria and standards are met: ((i)). The principle structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established. ((ii)). No other reasonable location for a deck exists. ((iii)). The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level maintains a minimum setback in accordance with applicable code sections and a maximum encroachment of 10 feet into the Bluff Impact Zone or Shore Impact Zone. ((iv)). The deck is framed construction, and is not roofed or screened. 9. PUBLIC NUISANCE: PENALTY A. Any person who violates any provisions of this district or fails to comply with any of its terms or requirements shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than ninety (90) days, or both, and in addition shall pay all costs of prosecution and expenses involved in the case. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. B. Every obstruction or use placed or maintained in the Preservation District in violation of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and creation thereof may be enjoined and the maintenance thereof abated by appropriate judicial action. C. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent, remedy or remove any violation. City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #11-02 October 5, 2011 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Wayne Dahl, DC 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: i. Variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level 2. Variance reducing the setback from the 40 ft. setback from the bluff 3. Variance increasing the size of a 15S accessory structure 4. Variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property 5. Variance increasing the 5 ft. setback of an accessory structure in front of a home Existing Zoning: R-1(Single Family Residential) Location: 177 Hartman Circle Lot Size: 42,688 sq. ft. .98 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home with attached garage and detached shed. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Rice Creek (dry bed) & Water and P W: MississiDai River & Water Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as a singie familv land use Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.32.8.A.(2)and 205.28.8.C.(2) requires a 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level. 205.32.8.A.(3) and 205.28.8.C.(1) requires a 40 ft. setback from the top of the bluff. 205.07.1.6.(1) requires that a first accessory building shal) not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. 205.07.1.6.(2).(a) requires a combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. 205.07.3.D.(1) requires that a garage not extend more than 5 ft. in front of the home. Zoning History: 1955 — Lot is platted. 1957 — House, garage and porch constructed. 1992 — Addition to the home and deck. 1994 — Variance approved to allow the construction of a shed. 1994 — Construction of shed. Legal Description of Property: Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Hartman Circle provides access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Large residential lot located along the Mississippi River and Rice Creek. SUMMARY OF PROJECT 7he petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order to achieve that, 5 variances will be required. 1. To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water levei from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. To reduce the bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. To increase the size of a 1s1 accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. To increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "My "plight" is I have a/arge home (1,900 sq. ft. first floorJ on a beautiful 1+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. 1 pay significani property taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear b/uff, neither which were created by myself as landowner."— also see attached narrative - Wayne Dahl, DC SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests. ➢ No practical difficulties exist on site. ➢ Potential impacts to Natural Resources; the Mississippi River and Monomin Park/Rice Creek ➢ Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way ➢ Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DEADLINE City Council — October 24, 2011 60 Day — October 31, 2011 60 Day Extension — December 30, 2011 Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #11-02 REQUEST The petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting approval from the City, to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order for staff to permit Dr. Dahl's construction plans, five variances will be required. 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a 15` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. The fifth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. It should also be noted that the placement of existing house and garage are deficient in meeting the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River and the 40 ft. bluff setback. As a result, the existing home is considering pre-existing non-conforming. In the event that the home were destroyed, it would be able to be re-built to the exact same footprint that exists today. Recognition of these non-conforming setbacks should be part of this variance request. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "My "plight" is 1 have a large home {1,900 sq. ft. first floarJ on a beautiful 1+ pere site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. I pay significant property taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but 1 am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created by myself as landowner."— also see attached narrative SITE DESCRITPION AND HISTORY The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are the properties to the north and east. The property is bordered by the Mississippi River to the west and Manomin Park and Rice Creek to the south. The property is located on Hartman Circle, which is accessed off of East River Road. The existing home was constructed in 1957. In 1990, the petitioner requested several variances to allow the construction of a 1,000 sq. ft. accessory structure on his lot. Those variances were to: 1) reduce the side yard setback from 5 ft. to 1 ft. , 2) to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory structure from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,670 sq. ft., 3) to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the front yard, 4) to increase the allowed height of a fence in the front yard from 4 ft. to 7 ft., 5) to reduce the required setback from a bluff line overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 ft. to 22 ft. This variance was tabled indefinitely at the request of Dr. Dahl. An addition to the home and deck were constructed in 1992. That addition - Wayne Dahl, DC 3' . .. ....-w �� ua �� w . tn : wa � �� es++aH na ac �-� � ; a�v _ � -`» �. .. ,„ n U� �, ��:a ,.o �. _�, ... •« .,. � `� .� � � ; � ,� : .n � ,� in � .. ' mi. � ' wu .,„ � _ � � "�' Y� r,y�qpMAMpqqF ��_, ;` .», ' �.�<� � �s�, p� �� .�_.,.. � - � .A ��` 1 involved the constructed of the four season porch on the southeast side of the home and reconstruction of the existing deck with an addition to it. In 1994, the City Council granted a variance to reduce the setback from the top of the bluffline overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 ft. to 1.5 ft., and to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, to aliow the construction of an 8 ft. by 15 ft. storage shed. That shed was then constructed in 1994. The petitioner has met with City staff several times over the last year and a half to deveiop a plan that would allow the construction of a new accessory structure on the subject property that would meet code requirements. Although, staff has determined that it is feasible to construct a new accessory structure on this 1ot which meets code requirements, the petitioner has decided to seek variances instead. CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family. It is also located in the O-1, Creek and River Protection District, in the 0-2, Critical Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, all code requirements within those districts appty to this property. Though a portion of the petitioner's lot is within the floodway, the proposed accessory structure location will not be impacted. The O-10verlay district was adopted in 1973 and the 0-2 Overlay district was adopted in 1977 and as a result, the petitioner's previous building requests have had to comply with those requirements. The State mandated that cities adopt a Shoreland Overlay District and as a result, adoption of the City of Fridley's Shoreland Overlay district occured in 2005. The O-2, Critical Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District require that all structures be setback 100 ft. from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River. Those two sections of code also requ+re that all structures be placed not less than 40 ft. from the top of the bluffline of the Mississippi River. • These requirements are in place to preserve bluff vegetation for natural habitat and to prevent erosion. The R-1, Single Family section of code requires a private garage as the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100�0 of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. • This is required to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures and to prevent the accessory structure from dominating the size of the principal structure, which is the home. The R-1, Single Family section of code also requires that the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. • This is required to also maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of accessory buildings, therefore allowing adequate room for open space and eliminating the overcrowding of the residential area. Lastly, the R-1 code requires that in no case may a garage extend more than 5 ft. in front of the home. • This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. 25 ft. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhood is not adversely changed by a protruding garage. 2 ANALYSIS The petitioner would like to construct a 1,900 sq. ft. garage on the north side of the house that will be attached to the house by a breezeway. The proposed garage would be 5 ft. from the north property line and 56 ft. from the front property line, which meets code requirements. The existing garage will be modified to living space and the existing shed will be removed. Due to the size and placement of the new accessory structure, five variances are being requested. �,.�, � �� !� •� H.�RT�AF.N 4..... `'" /,«.,....��^ � CIfiC' kr _ r_r Proposed Structure --- ;� "�, � ` � �o, -'�" '� � � . i+r:� ... . t _�.. _ � .ry � �r "' — _ $ `�! �• ... P .. . � �' ' � <�,. . . �. .' .�.' �� " . ..__.. �� ? f. , ,� � .�� -N ,�� i�.�:; �� ; :� � d.�x� .:r:. ,,...-w,.. . � ��' HL Setback �r�, , S� �I �t �4�l #, . i �� fQ i ,. �� s ��, �_� C�} � � � �"1 �✓ t ; � 3 i :t�7 �( � in � �� -- ��. � o.��. � ,. � � w�..��, � ,; �w {'. 7 �C '� f �7 • � $ ' s f�� i k ,� x � � 2 . � .,J'� .., ��, >° �_ * Bfuj�Setback � ,f� J r t ;�� , � '+ry`'��-. . �. :s '7 .:k"�tiT+. " i � _ . � ' � `m+�� .�, � � . ,!. �r� . _.�-- �,----� ..,� .... N C5'17y;r3+M: �.:;� �� ,. K�:�� `"`�� !I � . .h.. .. � � l—_. W`�w• �� wt r •pti � �" � . ��s ,,,,� �g�� v"�,� / rq i Ff • / � "^t %' 4" s � r nfa �,it' j ��,� .i ��,�- ��.._ .—..""—._ ----_.,,__ PRACTICIAL D/FFICULITES As the Commission is aware, recent changes in the State Legislature has somewhat changed how City's review variances. Instead of using the term "undue hardship", staff now needs to determine if "practical difficulties" exist before a variance can be granted. As a result, before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that if the variance is granted, it would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is also their job to prove that enforcement of the code would cause practical difficulties to exist. Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering application for variances. It is a three-factor test that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance. Those three factors are: 1. 2. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. The property owner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3 City Staff has not been able to identify any practical difficulties, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of practical difficulties and developed the following analysis: 1. Variance — To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 ft. to 78 ft. and 2. Variance — To reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o The purpose of the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high level and the 40 ft. setback from the bluff line is to: 1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River, 2) prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources, 3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River, 4) to protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi Corridor. Constructing a garage that will further impact these required setbacks from the Mississippi River and the bluff line would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive P/an? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. However, the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting Fridley's natural environment which includes the Mississippi River and Manomim Park to the south of the subject property. One of the Natural Resources polities within the Comprehensive Plan states "the Mississippi River is a prominent feature of Fridley and the River's health is important to Fridley's vitality. The City should pursue clean water initiatives, including storm water public education and using plants in rain gardens and on lakeshores to filter storm water run- off." Further impacting the setbacks required in the Critical Area and Shoreland Overlays could disturb the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage along the River bluff that would overall impact the quality of the Mississippi River, which is a Natural Resource. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing use of the property is considered reasonable, with the residential use of a house and garage, however, the proposed construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure within the required setback from the ordinary high water level and bluff is unreasonable. The petitioner has the option to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. code complaint accessory structure on the east and south sides of the exiting house that wouldn't impact these setback requirements. Relocating the proposed accessory structure 4 would not further impact the already non-conforming setbacks and would still provide a large enough structure, the petitioner desires, to store/park vehicles. Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o The subject property is bordered by the Mississippi River and Manomin Park, which would be considered positive attributes to the property; however they are not unique or exclusive to this property. As pointed out above, other options do exist that would allow for the construction of a new accessory structure that would comply with code requirements. There is no unique terraine limiting the petitioner from locating the garage elsewhere on the property. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the /ocality? o The purpose of the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level and the 40 ft. setback from the bluff line is to protect and preserve the natural amenity of the Mississippi River. Further impacting this setback could result in future slope erosion, which would impact the neighborhood and the surrounding community. 3. Variance — To increase the size of a 1S` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinanceT o City code requires that the 15t accessory structure not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. The purpose of this section of code is to maintain a residential quality in a neighborhood. It is also required so that living space is the dominant feature of the home. The petitioner has articulated in his narrative that because his house is 1,900 sq. ft., Code would allow him to have a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure without a variance. Staff s interpretation of this section of code is that the 15` accessory structure can't exceed the square footage of the first floor area of a home or a maximum 1,000 sq. ft. (For example, if you have a 640 sq. ft. house, you would be limited to a maximum of 640 sq. ft. garage. If you have a 1,900 sq. ft. house, you would be allowed a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. for a first accessory structure.) Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney that Staff is interrupting the code correctly. Therefore, allowing a garage in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. in size would require a variance and would not be in harmony with the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive P/an? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonab/e manner? o The construction of a new code complaint 1,000 sq. ft. accessory structure would be considered reasonable. The average two-car garage is approximately 500 sq. ft. However, a 1,900 sq. ft. garage, placed in non-compliance with setback and size requirements, when other options exist on the site, would be considered unreasonable. Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the /andowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require an accessory structure larger than code would allow. The petitioner desire to have a larger than average accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, if granted, a/ter the essential character of the /ocality? o The public purpose of this code requirement is to help maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure essentially in 5 front of the petitioner's home, will alter the character of the neighborhood. The 0-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited." Constructing the garage in the proposed location will impact the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of- way. 4. Variance — To increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City code requires that the 15i accessory structure not exceed the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. In addition it states that the total of all accessory structures on a property shall not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. (For examp/e, if the first accessory structure is 1,000 sq. ft., an additiona/400 sq. ft. shed wou/d be allowed.J This code is in place to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of all accessory building, therefore allowing adequate room for open space and eliminate the condition of overcrowding the residential area. The petitioner's desire to have a garage larger than code would allow is not in harmony with the code requirements. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive P/an? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposa/ put the property to use in a reasonab/e manner? o Constructing one garage that is larger than the City code allows for all accessory structures on a single-family lot wouldn't be reasonable. As pointed out previously, options do exist on this site that would allow for construction of a new accessory structure that would be 1,000 sq. ft. in size, which would comply with code requirements and still allow for a 4 stall garage. • Are there unique circumstances to rhe property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require a larger than code compliant garage. The petitioner's desire to have a larger than code complaint accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, if granred, a/ter the essential character of the /ocality? o The public purpose of this code requirement is to maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 sq. ft. garage in the front of the petitioner home, will alter the character of the neighborhood. The O-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the deve/opment is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of- way shall be prohibited." Constructing the garage of this size in the proposed location will definitely be impact views of the river for the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and it will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of-way. � 5. Variance — To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. 25 ft. The reduction in the front yard setback would allow property owners to construct an addition to the front of the home, but by limiting how far the garage can protrude in front of the home it will prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. The character of the neighborhood would also be adversely changed by a protruding garage. The proposed garage will protrude 64 ft. in front of the home, which will dominate the streetscape from Hartman Circle, therefore not meeting the intent of this ordinance. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the p�operty is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing garage, which was constructed in 1957, would be considered pre-existing conforming, because it extends in front of the home by more than 5 ft. To further allow the garage to extend into the front yard would be in direct contrast to what the City was trying to accomplish when adopting this section of code. Though the proposed accessory structure would be 56 ft. from the front property line, permitting it to be constructed as proposed is exactly what this code section is trying to avoid; allowing the garage to dominate the view from the public right-of-way. Are there unique circumstances to the property, nor created by the /andowner? o Again, no unique circumstances exist on this property what would allow a garage to be placed this far in front of the home, because other options do exist on this property. Moving the proposed accessory structure to the east side of the home would potentially still require the structure to be located in front of the home, however a reduction in the size of the structure and creative architecture through the use of a walkway and roof extension or pergola, could eliminate the need for this type of variance. • Wil1 the variance, if granted, a/ter the essential character of the /ocality? o The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. Granting a variance to allow the accessory structure to protrude 64 ft. in front of the home will definitely change the overall character of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. In summary, the analysis above explains why staff recommends denial of each variance request. It is the City's job to protect the natural resources that the City of Fridley has to offer, and allowing a structure like the one proposed to be constructed that will further impacts required Critical Area and Shoreland setbacks doesn't help protect that resource. There it too much potential for disturbance and alteration to the topography, vegetation and drainage by allowing the construction of the proposed accessory structure within the �equired setbacks. There will also be visual impacts from the river, neighboring properties and the public right-of-way. Practica{ difficulties don't exist when it comes to allowing a structure to be constructed that is larger than what code would allow. The petitioner's desire to have a larger accessory structure than code would allow is not a practical difficulty. 7 COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNRI City staff asked the DNR to offer their opinion on the petitioner's variance request in relation to the potential impacts to the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback. The e-mail they sent is attached for your review. Though they didn't offer a conclusive recommendation, they did question why the structure couldn't be moved outside the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback in its current configuration or reduced in size to meet setback requirements. They also expressed the need to consider whether the size of the proposed development could disturb or alter the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage and impacts to the visual character of the river corridor. Lastly, they inquired about the amount of hard surface the proposed structure would put on the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecological function of the river bluff system and increase runoff that can lead to slop instability, erosion, and sedimentation. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS Staff heard from the neighbor at 173 Hartman Circle, who is directly north of the subject property. He's not in favor of the proposed variances. He is concerned about the placement of the proposed structure and the potential impacts it will have on his property. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests. • No practical difficulties exist on site • Potential impacts to Natural Resources; the Mississippi River and Monomin Park/Rice Creek • Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property � 177 Hartman Circle .� d. ' � s • � Y � '�= �� 6; � �`Y i� � �+� � `4i'!� r a � , y tr , �! iy .! �� ' �r}` i � _ f . �ti""1: 9 A�* �� Y ��y�.�Y, , _ � ..,�,4� ,.t��" .-r n�� :i , �i 7C'1.,y.ajJ�'. ' . �' _, x�?- r�s . � ' . f` 1 �. , . . v � ' � ;,� ' 173 � . . :r � .�� Y.r.' � �.j� J'. �►`. .`y. s �� ,� -� `�" r - .� :` , � � ��' .s' i � �� -`�• � y` l u, }1C t".-�.:�� . _�i/� . :�;��x�� • e .'�l. ! ',,,.,- - � t ��`�' 1 � � ti a � n � NE i�o , � �., 1 1so � � .�.�� -:- „ � .,� � � , � ' �-. i�: n�1-� #i7 r.. �i�.1 ' x �- � . ,,�� . d � ' � .' .� � �' �,.. � �. . . .� ' ,� i n '. �A` ) '�. , `� �'�. ti ! � �r r_ � ' � i � t� Y ° � �� :,..`�, .?. � ,� -f�isi{ . � ,� -. � � %r,�` .. _ � . .� r .� :a�� :' ' ' 'y �`'!+?'f _ ' ' .JZ � � . � � �.Y�. .} . /' `� • ~4'I�J ��e�j� f . ' t ."+�cy. . r^' ..^ �,i� 't'�`i- . � �. . �.�t y � �w.;; �' � ,��(y�p fi�„p,� , i� , 5 �� - , . aL�o y� � .rL� 1 .. .. J� tJ i. . . j y�� f .'L - J� . �. . ' ��"'�'.C', x '�.� �,z- iss ' •: ,y; 1.I �� ry^� V Y � n. ' . �. , .�! •1 V �� '' �;»,, '4r��,1 . ;� .` F,, �` "�. • . ... . ;\ . .'�f\�p_,: � , i,F, j T� ."�ti� �)��I�� fil^.�Ek Ata��s ar�.i d:�zumen;s prepared by the clty (or this web sl�e, may not be reliable due to differences in databases or computer prograrrs as well as ihe possibiliry o` human error. unauthorized changes to the data, problems with the transmission of data, browser incompatibilities. or other aspects of intemet �ransmission beyond lhe conirol of City s�af(. Map created on Jun 7. 2070 4:02. This in/orma0on is lo be used lor re(erence puiposes onty. Copvriqh! �02009 Crfv o(Fridlev. AI! Riahfs Reserved � ii �i � �� 177 Hartman Circle � ; -+� ��,-s; �,,...., , . � , i i, jMh ' �'( � �� „� ,�,, + � .' ' .`.41 . ' *,'.4 -l�:�' l6ty .I� . IN4 �` ' .� .'. . ! i � { —y.N.A' �IF n .� �'�y�� ]y . 1. L � ' � / i ! ..�i � . � �. �i� . • i ) � . '� V. .� .� 1X1 � ' Y�l � � � • l��, , . � ,�:., I. � ` �., �, � i ,� � � � � ' „ (� i r K ,,. . , , i , `�'-`�� . i �� -�-;: I .. , , li4 � . "'' '.� .wr'' I � jm „� : . . . r . �� ',yp -'�`�: 1��,� wl"�.. � :. �� . -'�_.+'�,� �.��y �i� ._�� {�, �-I '°�i� 4 � . . � �: � � $ . � �� r _ r . .{ ' . �� A ,�� . �w 1 .. t� `1 tn �. . . .r , I � r C v ...9 �r ,. I i . � u., '�. :� ny. ' f� . h 74 � /'r ' n � Asj, � y <. f-'" .e.,c :� � � , � «.��j�, �,. � x((� ��.,-jy�� 5 �^ *� �.�C_._ � � k ,.1\ W _.� .+�� z . . =mt • �;.\+ . r, . . �., . - ti , - � - `,' � •- r. � ��/� ; hF" ,7 �Y r : z � r.. . ,� Q . �� , <., . _ � 'y � . , �;� '�i, •, ' ,H -�,�� . � ��.; r, � , �q�/ Y 1. � ! ,�y �� W , �» •��1��,'ntT'�r �i� � ��o� .. ��`�t ' ry� � � �� "�::,5'Nl� � 2 },. >. ,4 y� , ` ` ,�, F , iA.id i'"e. .,�rP.�y't�. t ��,� �� ,� ��..?�, '� z'. � +v` . `.;�'.�'" �- / � �.. i �: .,� LL �� 5 f,. �'- �/ ��.�q I ��` ,,�� .w � 'b ..y�� :t`.• • �% � '�^." �Y , � �,;; �:, �. . ,�w r; � . t � j . � ��1r. �f:,.. r � �'-M •. � T , �-�y,^ . � �� y, �� •�. � �. - • n R�` y 1 �_ III ~ !*�"\�� •s�W�l•�� •� �e�.f � �/�, . . \ ' T� �f� . ' \L� � � . ., � "�q� ' � �} � � Y� : � � "� 4 �•' � - t y� � ` `+ - [Yl � � �'R' �+� V"q„��' �. r. ��'.•� I � � � . > r ` ��'.� , I `� ,[ i ,, 1 �T �\ . �4 '� � .� , � � Y�.Yo.' ' �.1 �. - "G r . J� _i, ,.'1;: .� � "' , .!_ � '. ��N'I �� . S t^ y"�� I : . � : ti'�` . . �_'� ' �� i� �! ' ♦ �. ^ . �it ' .as. "` x - � � ivs. k` , r j �, ,•.� '` �` ,�. �, :� �r H Disclaunei. 7 his infornialion is being disiribuletl as tlenionstration da(a only. You should not use Ue dala for any other pu�poses at this time. This information is to be usetl for reference purposes only. W� �' E Copynght �O 2010 City ol Fndley. All Righfs Reserved 9 Printed 08/15l2011 r �� 177 Hartman Circle ' '' °"� '`,: �„--•.' , ` . i�� , � �� ' .,�, �;r j �..': ia' {.�.; ` -�a �� .�. 1 } ' .' �., n . I ih tIY ti� � -'� � � � F .. ,� -..* �it , e �r- �.� ' '� 1 ':y _,. , , � � i �t;i : . i �.s �.-. r t , v k' �, • • - ,' ! �. ��o I�. i �¢ - i ' � �6� � � �.i �:, i . . a � ��, � -.: - r..t ; ; � �s� . �.- � ; . , • 7 '�:�" '�-�,.!t' � ��6 , �� ,,_„�� ' � � � �t �� 4 �� m� _ � " r �n �� . . . i ` _ _ " � � , . . I . � �' . 4?- ""` , , C P 1r�� . � �" � � . j " { IW ��. ;_�� i s � � I �4f�t"„v ,, _ � �� ' ,..� � ►4 '� u W � . .. 1' � � t i � � � �� s:.• � ` � .n �� + . �� M� _ � tv. _ �:.s k� � - i - . . �'�'� � � � � '+��. " .. c y.-' ��7��.. �, .ti . e � � \�'.,�� * . ' � r p :,t � -O _ s : `,� n . _ , —�' , c�s,- - . � . � , y� �a � , �� • ' �� h� � :} �+4 �: �5:'� +. �� Sw,,�_. ,t ... � �+s ., . `� 9 . . ..a , �, �}�, . i�C'�a�, ' , `'�r ��f'��{ '"'�.,��, ��. � �� , � . �:t-'r� ,�_ ,i,'� `, x� ''. �� r y �y i � _.. �' rt�1 �'�T'�<.�;��, l� r+ . � � .n. ;�' �l !;;; '�`!�' �,w ., �� ' �. � .. 5y ta '�, . � ' +�'� �{;� � �F" � �} . i ;a . . �� , j � `4: �,�y. e •x , .{� • f � � .� t7�' "�at" � i ti �v _ �. � , ;:F, ! •� , w ` 9 ' K ��`O !�+ ' e `. > - �� ;� . 't � �..� +} �4 � � ! . v h•Y � e ...t � .. �a\• � �.s � V � . • Y ��u� " . f � . ,4� � �' . .. `..� �. .� \ . �T,e •%� ♦j y�� .-1 \ . ��, ��. � �4 Y ^1'. '.; ��'�'' �' '�� F�`� � y �;� �' � ; �, . _ , �' . y � ' ` i s� ' pL 'ti'. R. . y:. Y` ' � r�•a ' ��.- a.'tI � . w t �\a . , � ' �+.. � � . , . ' � ` �� . �: ��+� h„p[ � i.� u a�t. ♦ �� -r r y:� . k ` '!',}�_ s _ ,- -'N-� � . ,, rta�' �� ;.n� .cY�. :•�, »` � t - � H+ Disclaimer This iniomiahon is being tlistnbutetl as demons�ration da�a only You should no� use lhe tlata for any othcr purposes at ,rs.,. this time. This in(ormation is to be used for reference purposes only. w y �' E Copynght � 2010 Cdy ol Fndley. All Rights Reserved s Printed 08l15/2011 � i�) ��1 .,�� : ._ To see all ihe OeWils t�a[ are Nsible on ihe screen, use t�e "PnnY' link nezl lo the map Geolopval SLryAY� Maptleta �ft�j�� , ��p ` , . ';�► f.�n-� .. *��,� 3 � �� - y � � � �'. t� . � f'. � . ,t }: �. � � w, ' ��y� '�+'i .'a.- -"' . � '• ..� �* �11^i: F - }� G� ,» �, ! ' �-a. " � �; v `y�i W , �� V ": iil. qt . 'Y� � 4 i .y � �`Y ♦c �`� , % ��' �� .� �� }r.�+.'� � n.�A� � x�� w` . Y��' �� . . � . i��/yjypj� � � 3� ` � � � � �''�^ ��! ^T k� .r,� .. . .0-.:�7 y� 4`. .r,i � �f+ •�P � +� a r � r � _ ` �• ' x G`�`� ��'f/ . � . � 4, � �.� s; e'��', F�." � ' +-.�, ;' �l , §� , ';� Q � �:+.t -� .t� � .p.� . .w y � � � �.. ^ � ' r� 1 .. � r"R;�.� � .�,� � � ,f � �>� ��. . tinl C �+��a�,:: � � :',I�". :�� ,�'_- ±�� i ..�:-.- .� � �.. Yf: J , � -.. � y�.. ; t�' �',.:_. "ef-�, a.. �-. �. - il._: i � t . � '. ' �� ,� � , , �:�:� .� . . � _ �� i+�� a r4� ' , ry, �ti'. ,. �� .r J . - i' � ��,�_ �, r -�� : :' ',� , �;�;�' .�rf. � '� � a.: � • � ,. � ,/ �v � � � `w. ` *� . -.�,� F .' •`. • ; 'V�. ,'. � i �� .'' . M I' ' �: Stromberg, Stacy From: GIS Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:36 PM To: Stromberg, Stacy Subject: 177 Hartman Area Measurements Hi Stacy, Below are the numbers for 177 Hartman Circle (PIN - 153024120057) Parcel Acres: 0.987993 Parcel Square Feet: 43036.9835 Impervious Surface Driveway: 3,482 Sq. Ft. House 8 Garage: 4,023 Sq. Ft. Total Impervious Area: 7,505 Sq. Ft. � /, ��; _ . Andrew lC � `�� Fiidley GIS e-mail: gisr�i'ci ti_ic1le�,mn_us Phone: 763-572-3555 � �� ! . i-c' c� � i, � �� E_ �� - lt. ` � �� liC /„ 1 S I TE AND TOPOGRAPH I C SURVEY rev.8-24-1] (prop.gar.) � I IiERE6Y CERTIFY THAT -"�IIS SuRVEY. PLkIJ OR RE�ORi WAS PREPARE� BY ME ON „M1DtF MY Dln[CT SUPERVISION A HAT I AM A DULY LI�E�ND SURVEYOR UNDcR T E L 4 OF E�T� F M ESOTA. Rand— y�h, L.L.S. No. 20270 Russell J. Karth, L.L.S. No. 1E113 KURTH SURVEYING, INC. 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. COLUM8IA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 PHONE (�63) 788-9769 FAX (763) 788-7602 E-MAlL: ksi�kurthsurveyinginc.com FOR: WAYNE DAHL 0 30 SCAL� rev.B-j]-I1 (p.gar.-eaves)� Benchmaric Used: To,� n�t of hydrant at 185 Hartman Circle Elevation: b38.b95 (N.G.V.D., 19291(City of Fridley 6M1 NOTE: PROPOSED GARAGE WAS SCALED FROM SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY C. LYONS DATED 7�30/2010 L��.. �� q / � P � � � u Z 0 0 m z 0 ¢ � �� ` o\ 'oA N � o � �—� �7 �� ^ l� �� V ^J lJ l H-�^ V J V J ( F —i � � �i i I I 1 ` �+ ---- - o�- 5i� ----- • ❑ � �'-10^v.00 -- fV g5o = IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUNJ = CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND = EXISTING SPOT ELEVAT]ON = 10 FT. CONTOUR LINE = 2 FT. CONTOUR L1NE = DECORATIVE DRIVEWAY LIGF;T b AS,b � ' � , N6� .�9"� , �`,�' 76�•mavie � DATE �uly 22, 2010 BEAR WGS SHOWN ARE PER THE RECORDED PLnT c.= 3�" � ` o-�J �� C� 2� 0� � °`Q /p�°I �� / S 9`� �o" / / > >2. ,�',' HARTP�IAN �F��. � CIRCLE / � / / /�� oE c��F'� 0�0 �' ��,'� � � — 17'00"W � l � — / �V � �� I_LGAL DESCRIPTION (Irom county icx recordsl Lot 20, Block 2, SANDHURST ADDITION, Anoka County, Mmnesotc, excePl thot �ort decnbed as follows; Be9innin9 at ihe most easterly corner on ihe line line between Lots 19 and 20, Block2, thence southwastarlyalony sa�d common line, 15.0 feet, ihence easterly to a poim on ihe northeastarly line of said Lot 20, c d��stance of 6.00 faeet soulherly of the point of beginnm9, thence northerly along the noriheasterly line of said Lot 20, 6.00 feet to the point of be9inniny. I RLK-N:SC\SA�DHl.RST-�A��-re�9 }Lg.d SEC 15-7�-zQ 7-22-10 REV.8-24-11 REV.9-31-II � � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING October 5, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sielaff called the Appeals Commission meeting to order :O1 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MOTION by Del Jenkins Christopher Brad Sielaff �ott Hickok, Community Development Director Stacy Stromberg, Planner July 6, 2011 Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the minutes. UPON A�NANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Consideration of a Variance, VAR #11-02, by Wayne Dahl, DC, generally located at 177 Hartman Circle. Five variances are required in order to allow the construction of a new garage. 1. Variance reducin� the setback from the ordinarv high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet. 2. Variance reducin� the bluff setback from the 40 feet to 11 feet. 3. Variance increasing the size of a 15` accessorv structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. 4. Variance increasing the size of all accessorv structure on a propertv from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. 5. Variance increasin� the setback of an attached accessorv structure located in front of a home from 5 feet to 64 feet. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNAI�TIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2Q 11 Page 2 of 18 � � Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting approval from the City, to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order for staff to permit Dr. Dahl's construction plans, five variances will be required. 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 feet to 78 feet. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 feet to 11 feet. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a ls' accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 syuare feet. 5. The fifth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 feet to 64 feet. Ms. Stromberg stated it should also be noted that the placement of existing house and garage are deficient in meeting the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River and the 40-foot bluff setback. As a result the existing home is considering pre-existing non-conforming. In the event the home was destroyed, it would be able to be re-built to the exact same footprint that exists today. Recognition of these non-conforming setbacks should be part of this variance request. Ms. Stromberg stated petitioner's statement of hardship reads: "My `plight' is I have a large home (1,900 square foot first floor) on a beautiful 1+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. I pay significant property taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created by myself as landowner." Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned R-1, Sing(e Family as are the properties to the north and east. The property is bordered by the Mississippi River to the west and Manomin Park and Rice Creek to the south. The property is located on Hartman Circ(e, which is accessed off of East River Road. 'The existing home was constructed in 1957. In 1990 the petitioner requested several variances to allow the construction of a 1,000 square foot accessory structure on his lot. Those variances were to: (1) reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 feet; (2) to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory structure from 1,400 square feet to 1,670 square feet; (3) to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the front yard; (4) to increase the allowed height of a fence in the front yard from 4 faet to ? feet; and (5) to reduce the required setback from a bluff line overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 feet to 22 feet. This variance was tabled indefinitely at the request of Dr. Dahl. Ms. Stromberg stated an addition to the home and deck were constructed in 1992. That addition involved the construction of the four-season porch on the southeast side of the home and reconstruction of the existing deck with an addition to it. In 1994 the City Council granted a variance to reduce the setback from the top of the bluff line over(ooking the Mississippi River from 40 feet to 1.5 feet, and to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, to allow the construction of an 8-foot by 15-foot storage shed. That shed was then constructed in 1994. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has met with City staff several times over the last year and a half to develop a plan that would allow the construction of a new accessory structure on the subject property that would meet Code requirements. Although staff has determined it is feasible to construct a new accessory structure on this lot which meets Code requirements, the petitioner has decided to seek variances instead. � Appeals Commission Meeting October S, 2011 Page 3 of 18 Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family. It is also located in the O-1 (Creek and River Protection Disri-ict), in the O-2 (Critica! Area District), and the O-7 (Shoreland Overlay District). Therefore, all Code requirements within those districts apply to this properly. Though a portion of the petitioner's lot is within the floodway, the proposed accessory structure location will not impact the floodway. The O-1 Overlay district was adopted in 1973 and the O-2 Overlay district was adopted in 1977 and, as a result, the petitioner's previous building requests have had to comply with those requirements. The State mandated that cities adopt a Shoreland Overlay District and, as a result, adoption of the City of Fridley's Shoreland Overlay district occurred in 2005. Ms. Stromberg stated the O-2, Critical Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District require that ait structures be set back 100 feet from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River. Those two sections of Code also require that all structures be placed not less than 40 feet from the top of the bluff line of the Mississippi River. • These requirements are in place to preserve bluff vegetation for natural habitat and to prevent erosion. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-1, Single Family section of Code requires a private garage as the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. • This is reqnired to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures and to prevent the accessory structure from dominating the size of the principal structure, which is the home. Ms. 5tromberg stated the R-1, Single Family section of Code also requires that the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square feet. • This is required to also maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of accessory buildings, therefore, allowing adequate room for open space and eliminating the overcrowding of the residential area. Ms. Stromberg stated, lastly, the R-1 code requires that in no case may a garage extend more than 5 feet in front of the home. • This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhood is not adversely changed by a protruding garage. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner would like to construct a 1,900 square foot garage on the north side of the house that will be attached to the house by a breezeway. The proposed garage would be 5 feet from the north property line and 56 feet from the front property line, which meets Code requirements. The existing garage will be modified to living space, and the existing shed will be removed. Because of the size and placement of the new accessory structure, five variances are being reyuested. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated as the Commission is aware, recent changes in the State Legislature have somewhat changed how cities review variances. Instead of using the term, "undue hardship," stafi now needs to determine if "practical difficulties" exist before a variance can be granted. As a result, before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that if the variance is granted, it would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is also their job to prove that enforcement of 3 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 4 of 18 the Code would cause practical difficulties to exist. Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering application for variances. It is a three-factor test that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance. Those three factors are: 1. The property owner proposes to use the properly in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. 2. The property owner's problem is because of circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Hickok stated City staff has not been able to identify any practical difficulties, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. Ms. Stromberg stated in reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of practical difficulties and developed the following analysis: 1. Variance — To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet and 2. Variance — To reduce the required bluff setback from 40 feet to 11 feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o The purpose of the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high level and the 40-foot setback from the bluff line is to: (1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River; (2) prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources; (3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi Rive; and (4) protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi Corridor. Constructing a garage that will further impact these required setbacks from the Mississippi River and the bluff line would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this properiy as residential, which is how the properly is being used and will continue to be used. Therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. However, the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting Fridley's natural environment which includes the Mississippi River and Manomin Park to the south of the subject property. One of the Natural Resources policies within the Comprehensive Plan states, "the Mississippi River is a prominent feature of Fridley, and the River's health is important to Fridley's vitality. The City should pursue clean water initiatives, inciuding storm water public education and using plants in rain gardens and on lakeshores to filter storm water run-off." Further impacting the setbacks required in the Critical Area and Shoreland Overlays could disturb the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage along the River bluff that would overall impact the quality of the Mississippi River, which is a Natural Resource. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing use of the property is considered reasonable, with the residential use of a house and garage. However, the proposed construction of a 1,900 square foot accessory structure within the required setback from the ordinary high water level and blufi is unreasonable. The petitioner has the option to construct a 1,000 square foot Code compliant accessory structure on the east and south sides of the existing house that would not impact these setback requirements. Relocating the proposed accessory 4 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 5 of 18 structure would not further impact the already non-conforming setbacks and would still provide a large enough structure in which the petitioner desires to store/park vehicles. Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o The subject property is bordered by the Mississippi River and Manomin Park, which would be considered positive attribates to the property; however, they are not unique or exclusive to this properly. As pointed out above, other options do exist that would allow for the construction of a new accessory structure that would comply with code requirements. There is no unique terrain limiting the petitioner from locating the garage elsewhere on the property. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The purpose of the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water level and the 40-foot setback from the bluff line is to protect and preserve the natural amenity of the Mississippi River. Further impacting this setback could result in future slope erosion, which would impact the neighborhood and the surrounding community. 3. Variance — To increase the size of a ls` accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City Code requires that the 1 S' accessory structure not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. The purpose of this section of Code is to maintain a residential quality in a neighborhood. It is also required so that living space is the dominant feature of the home. The petitioner has articulated in his narrative that because his house is 1,900 square feet, Code would allow him to have a 1,900 square foot accessory structure without a variance. Staffls interpretation of this section of Code is that the 1 S` accessory structure cannot exceed the square footage of the first floor area of a home or a maximum 1,000 square feet. (For example, if you have a 640 square foot house, you would be limited to a maximum of a 640 square foot garage. If you have a 1,900 square foot house, you would be allowed a maximum of 1,000 square feet for a first accessory structure.) Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney that staff is interpreting the Code correctly. Therefore, allowing a garage in excess of 1,000 square feet in size would require a variance and would not be in harmony with the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The construction of a new Code complaint 1,000 square foot accessory structure would be considered reasonable. The average two-car garage is approximately 500 square feet. However, a 1,900 square foot garage, placed in non-compliance with setback and size requirements, when other options exist on the site, would be considered unreasonable. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require an accessory structure larger than Code would allow. The petitioner desiring to have a larger than average accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the localiry? o The public purpose of this Code requirement is to help maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 square foot accessory structure 5 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 6 of 18 essentially in front of the petitioner's home will alter the character of the neighborhood. The O-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited. " Constructing the garage in the proposed location will impact the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of- way. Variance — To increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City Code requires that the 151 accessory structure not exceed the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. In addition it states that the total of all accessory structures on a property shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. (For example, if the first accessory structure is 1,000 square feet, an additional 400 square foot shed would be allowed.) This Code is in place to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of all accessory building, therefore, allowing adequate room for open space and eliminate the condition of overcrowding the residential area. The petitioner's desire to have a garage larger than Code would allow is not in harmony with the Code requirements. • Is the variance consistent with the. Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and wi11 continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o Constructing one garage that is larger than the City Code allows for all accessory structures on a single-family lot would not be reasonable. As pointed out previously, options do exist on this site that would allow for construction of a new accessory structure that would be 1,000 square feet in size, which would comply with code requirements and still allow for a four-stall garage. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require a larger than Code compliant garage. The petitioner's desire to have a larger than Code compliant accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the properly. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The public purpose of this Code requirement is to maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 square foot garage in the front of the petitioner's home will alter the character of the neighborhood. The 0-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited. " Constructing the garage of this size in the proposed location will definitely impact views of the river for the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle, and it will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of-way. 0 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 7 of 18 5. Variance — To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 feet to 64 feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. The reduction in the front yard setback would allow property owners to construct an addition to the front of the home, but by limiting how far the garage can protrude in front of the home it will prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. The character of the neighborhood would also be adversely changed by a protruding garage. The proposed garage will protrude 64 feet in front of the home, which will dominate the streetscape from Hartman Circle, therefore, not. meeting the intent of this ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing garage, which was constructed in 1957, would be considered pre-existing conforming, because it extends in front of the home by more than 5 feet. To further allow the garage to extend into the front yard would be in direct contrast to what the City was trying to accomplish when adopting this section of code. Though the proposed accessory structure would be 56 feet from the front properly line, permitting it to be constructed as proposed is exactly what this Code section is trying to avoid; allowing the garage to dominate the view from the public right-of-way. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o Again, no unique circumstances exist on this property what would allow a garage to be placed this far in front of the home, because other options do exist on this property. Moving the proposed accessory structure to the east side of the home would potentially still require the structure to be located in front of the home; however, a reduction in the size of the structure and creative architecture through the use of a walkway and roof extension or pergola could eliminate the need for this type of variance. • Will the variance, ifgranted, alter the essential character of the localiry? o The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. Granting a variance to allow the accessory structure to protrude 64 feet in front of the home will definitely change the overall character of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. Ms. Stromberg stated, in summary, the analysis above explains why staff recommends denial of each variance request. It is the City's job to protect the natura) resources the City of Fridley has to offer, and allowing a structure like the one proposed to be constructed that will further impact required Critical Area and Shoreland setbacks does not help protect that resource. There is too much potential for disturbance and alteration to the topography, vegetation, and drainage by allowing the construction of the proposed accessory structure within the required setbacks. There will also be visual impacts from the river, neighboring properties, and the public right-of-way. Ms. Stromberg stated practical difficulties do not exist when it comes to allowing a structure to be constructed that is larger than what Code would allow. The petitioner's desire to have a larger accessory structure than Code would allow is not a practical difficulty. 7 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 8 of 18 Ms. Stromberg stated City staff asked the DNR to offer their opinion ori the petitioner's variance request in relation to the potential impacts to the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback and an e- mail they sent is attached for the Commission's review. Though they did not offer a conclusive recommendation, they did question why the structure could not be moved outside the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback in its current confguration or reduced in size to meet setback requirements. They also expressed the need to consider whether the size of the proposed development could disturb or alter the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage and impacts to the visual character of the river corridor. Lastly, they inquired about the amount of hard surface the proposed structure would put on the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecological function of the river bluff system and increase runoffthat can lead to slope instability, erosion, and sedimentation. Ms. Stromberg stated staff heard from the neighbor at 173 Hartman Circle, who is directly north of the subject property. He is not in favor of the proposed variances. He is concerned about the placement of the proposed structure and the potential impacts it will have on his properly. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests because of the following: • No practical difficulties exist on site; • Potential impacts to Natural Resources, the Mississippi River, and Manomin Park/Rice Creek; • Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way; and • Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property. Commissioner Jenkins asked what exactly is an ordinary high water level tabie? Mr. Hickok replied, ordinary high water mark is the level in which the DNR uses and, because the water fluctuates as it does, the ordinary high water mark is often used as the measurement point to gain distances for structures from the waterway. Chairperson Sielaff referred to the map showing the ordinary high water setback and the bluff setback, if the buildings were to meet that setback they would be in compliance? Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Commissioner Anderson asked, in Ms. Stromberg's response to Variance No. 5, she had referenced that if the garage were on the east side, that a non-conformity potentially could occur; but she does state that with a reduction in size of the structure and creative architecture, the use of walkway extension or a pergola, it would eliminate the need for this type of variance. He asked if staff would explain why it would work for that side possibly but not for the other side. Mr. Hickok showed a sketch which takes them back to the frst of many discussions staff had with the petitioner regarding potential options for this site. Early on there were a couple of different ones. One they suggested was if the existing garage were to be used as a garage, and it has a dimension of 576 square feet then, if the petitioner were to construct a new garage of no more than 775 square feet, they could connect it thereby not having a freestanding structure in front of the home. This would minimize the number of variances they would need. This would take the structure back away from the ordinary high water mark. It would take the new structure back away from the 40-foot setback from the bluff line, and it would limit the number of necessary variances. It would also reduce the number of variances by virtue of not having a 1,900 square foot request before them but instead having the proper amount of Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 9 of 18 square feet allowed by code. There would be far less variances, far less impact, and would certainly help the sight lines of the adjacent northern property. Staff felt this was an important option to discuss. Mr. Hickok stated they also discussed the potential of putting a garage along that eastern side. That garage kind of creates a courtyard in front of the house. The petitioner talked about changing the existing garage to living area which then means that new garage could exist and really not be in front of the house, if it's to the house. It could be set so it met setbacks and would not further impose on the 40-foot bluff line, and this would have been a solution that really could be built. The petitioner did express concern about the sight lines of the property to the east and, astutely so, this does have more impact on the sight lines to the property to the east but does reduce the number of variances on this site. Essentiaily taking it away to just a building permit issue as opposed to requiring variances at all. , Commissioner Anderson stated ultimately if the existing garage were to be converted to living space that would become the front of the house. Whatever point is closest to the street. Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. Chairperson Sielaff stated this is part of the Mississippi critical area. He asked whether these requirements are adopted by the Code from that designation? That is a federal designation is it not? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, it is and the City adopts those regulations and puts those into our Code as an overlay district. Mr. Hickok stated also in the City's Comprehensive Plan it is committed to protecting those regulations and, as mentioned, this is consistent along the entire river corridor from here to the Gulf of Mexico. Carry Lyons, Architect, stated he is the architect working with Mr. Dahl. He assumed the Commission had a chance to review the architectural plans and elevations. The City is very much about maintaining the residential integrity and character, and that is exactly what Dr. Dahl is intending to do. He has tried to incorporate into the design of this facility all the same scale and proportion that exists in the existing facility. With the use of a number of defending planes it would mitigate the impact visually from Hartman Circle. Using all the same materials and trying to mitigate the effect of the overhead doors to the extent they may even be viewed as typical residential doors. The proportion and the scale are going to be in keeping in character with the existing structure and developing that same feel. Dr. Dahl is proposing extensive planting between the border between his property and Hartman Circle. There is quite a distinction made in the ordinance between living space and garage space. In most cases that is preriy obvious. In this case this garage will be fully ou�tted as though it were living space with finished interior surface, vaulted ceilings, heated, air conditioned. The distinction between the two he would submit is very slight between living space/garage space. He appreciates it is the Commission's responsibility to safeguard the community against agricultural buildings, metal buildings, corrugated metal, etc. As they can see that is not anywhere near Mr. Dahl's intent. Mr. Lyons stated the property is already 46,000 square feet. The City would allow a 1,000 square foot garage on a 9,000 square foot properly. Actually it allows it on a 7,500 square foot property prior to 59 or somewhere in that category. As far as maintaining or overcrowding the residential area, he cannot see that would be directly applicab(e. He would like to suggest it be reviewed on its merits of circulation, architectural integrity, and connectiveness with Mr. Dahl's property rather than the somewhat arbitrary � Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 10 of 18 issue of it does not meet this specific requirement as stated in the ordinance that the Commission has been empowered to make judgments about, make appeals about, to maintain the residential character. Mr. Lyons stated he also appreciates that the Commission may be approached after the fact and be asked, how could you possibly allow five variances on a project like that? He would say it was practical. The property is unusual. It is located in an unusual place. It should not be held to the standards of the lowest common denominator of the community. Practical difficulties — that is of course something under "hardship." These are terms that have to be put in there because you do not want people just doing what they want. Does this really appear it is contrary to the intent of a residential community development? It is bigger than usual. It will house these magnificent vehicles. It will actually have windows on the end so people can actually enjoy viewing these vehicles. He would submit that these are museum-quality vehicles and, if indeed the Dr. set up a museum and allowed it for public viewing, it would be well received by the community rather than shunned stating what an eyesore, how could they possibly allow a 1,900 square foot monstrosity in our neighborhood? He does not work to present something he does not believe in. Mr. Lyons stated it is true there were various options to look at on this site for locating the garage. In his opinion they did not work nearly as wefl, in terms of character, circulations, scale, and appropriateness. One of the largest complaints, if you were to locate to the east as was suggested, that would eliminate or severely impede the neighbor to the east of any view of the Mississippi River. He also appreciates there could be ways to reorganize the drive, reorganize the entire front yard. They explored those options, and none of them made visual and as complete comprehensive sense as just locating along the western edge, wrapping it as it does, to fulfill and complement the existing home. Mr. Lyons stated a number of the variances associated with the request have to do with front yard setbacks. Again, the properiy is unique just like the remainder of the river front property. What is the front yard? Is really the approach from Hartman the front yard in this case? He submits the river is really the front yard and that is pretty evident the way people use the riverside of their homes. How it is advertised in real estate brochures. Is the variance encroaching the front yard? Yes, it is encroaching the front yard if the principal yard is only the consideration. However, if indeed the garage and the home are really one expression, not just a separate agri building, is it really an encroachment then? The suggestion staff made was to build onto the east side of the house and that is perfectly acceptable because it meets those requirements of sustaining the 100 feet and the 40 feet, but it does not work with the architecture or the circulation of the property. They are trying desperately to fit with the architecture but not be slavish to this somewhat arbitrary setbacks. Mr. Lyons stated he understands it is heinous to refer to these as somewhat arbitrary setbacks and requirements, but the fact of the matter is those setbacks and requirements have been infringed upon numerous times up and down the riverfront. Why does this become the time when it becomes a real issue? If it is construed so the architecture is pleasant enough to be not necessarily a garage, then indeed there is no setback infringement on the front yard at all. Mr. Lyons referred to the case of the Frank Loyd Wright house in Pennsylvania which went completely against Mr. Wright's usual concern for the natural environment and built the home on the falls rather than down in the lower area and viewing the falls. Mr. Wright realized the opportunity there. He brings this up as a little bit of interest to know that this particular facility, not by Mr. Lyons' measure, is considered to be the most recognized piece of architecture in the world and, if not in the world, then certainly the United States. It is right on the bluff, hanging over the waterfall. 10 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Jenkins stated what Mr. Lyons is proposing is absolutely beautiful. Mr. Lyons stated Dr. Dahl has committed to anything the City requests in terms of materials or presentation of the architecture he is more than amenable to that; but he is certainly desirous of that location. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Lyons if he had explored the process of pushing the entire structure towards the street to at least eliminate some of the variance requirements? Mr. Lyons replied, they did a number of times and the interest of making the connection to the non- conforming, and he does not remember the exact rules and regulations; but he believed it was stressed they wanted to make a connection. He does know it tends to flow better with the architecture of the house and the garage if their proximity is about what is being proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated in looking at the survey, is he reading it correctly that essentially that it is encroaching into the setback that is furthest up in the yard by 29 feet? On the south side it looks like it is 22.7? Ms. Stromberg replied, 29 ft. from the bluff setback and 22 ft. from the ordinary high water level setback. Robert Christenson, Business Manager and Consultant for Dr. Dahl, stated Dr. Dahl has been his client for five and one-half years. His family has been in Fridley for 100 years, ha has been on City commissions, he managed the Chamber of Commerce, has been President of the Historical Society for seven or eight years, and has owned businesses in Fridley. He agreed to look at this situation for Dr. Dahl and has had a number of ineetings with Scott Hickok and Stacy Stromberg about this. He looks at Fridley as one of the unique cities in Anoka County. Up until about two years ago from the 1950's it had the largest tax valuation in Anoka County. His father served on the Beautification Commission, and they really want to keep this City as a leader in the county and that means both by beautification but also in protecting habitat and environmental issues. Mr. Christenson stated when he heard about this and what Dr. Dahl explained the project to him, he made a trip over to the DNR. The Commission has a letter in their packet that was submitted by Kate Drewry. Mr. Christenson went and met with her and asked her about this. He asked how does the DNR look at these types of situations and gave her the specifications as the Community Development did. She said she cannot give him an opinion on a specific case. Mr. Christenson asked what has been the history of this with other properties? She said the DNR only actively becomes involved in enforcing its regulations when it is a very egregious offense and where there has been people taking action without getting prior approval to do what they are doing. Mr. Christenson also asked Ms. Drewry how many cases have they actually taken action on in the past few years, and she replied there has only been two. Mr. Christenson told her that is quite extraordinary, and she said you have to look at it this way, they write very strong environmental regulations but have to be arbitrary when they write them because every case is going to be different and they go to the conservative side. That leaves room for local municipalities to look at the situation and make their determination, and they rarely ever override a local decision. 11 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 12 of 18 Mr. Christenson stated for example, one of the concerns is habitat. The only things right now on the river are some eagles that actually roost outside Dr. Dahl's deck in the trees that fly over the Mississippi River. He showed photos of Dr. Daht's property. There is a lot of foliage and because of what the DNR states they would not really be concerned with erosion is the case of Dr. Dahl's properly. In addition, regarding the 100-foot flood setback, the bluff is about 27 feet above the river. That takes a huge flood and you are not going to see a 27-foot rise in the river. There is no way this property is ever going to flood. Finally, the shed is going to be removed when the garage is put in. The garage is going to be further back from where the shed is. Therefore, Dr. Dahl will be coming into greater conformity, not less. The DNR is not going to be objecting to this. Mr. Christenson stated one of the other reasons the DNR just does not get involved in this is every time there is an exception made to the DNR regulations, they have to refer it to the Attorney General whose legal staff then gets involved and, regardless if they win or lose, it goes against their budget so they are very selective in what properties they are going to create concern about. However, the code states to generally protect and preserve the Mississippi River which is listed, harrr►ony with purpose and intent ordinance to protect and preserve; this project has no affect at all on the Mississippi River. Actually in front of Dr. Dahl's property, along that bluff, he built a beautiful boulder barrier between the river and the bank so there would be no erosion. You can see it from the river. Provide and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources. There are no damages. The trees are still going to stay there and the bluff will still be there. Preserve and enhance natural aesthetic cultural and historical value. There is no affect. Protect and preserve biological ecological functions. No affect. This garage will have no affect on the Mississippi River. In addition it is not going to have any affect on any of the neighbors' view of the Mississippi River because this is 27-feet above the river. Mr. Christenson showed a photo of Dr. Dahl's front yard taken from Hartman Circle. You cannot see the river from there. It is down 27 feet below that line. There are no homes except the home from the north and they have a view. Dr. Dahl building that garage is not going to affect their view one iota because between the garage and his property is a tree line. It will have an affect on the property to the east if the garage was moved over to the east. As he was reading in the document the Commission also has under the variance, "the walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited." If they did put it on the east side, it would be prohibited anyways although the City said there would be another option. Mr. Christenson stated regarding the variance to increase the size of the structure from 1,000 to 1,900 square feet, this in plain English says, City Code requires that the first accessory structure•not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. It does not say "and" a maximum of 1,000 square feet. It does not says "whichever is less" it says, "or." There is an offer and receiver, and they are ofFering this as what the options are. You can either be the first floor square footage or not to exceed 1,000 square feet maximum. The recipient's choice is whether it is a 1,000 square feet or keeping it to a maacimum of 1,000 square feet or 100 percent; and 100 percent just happens to be more than 1,000 square feet. They do not need a variance for that because it is in Code. He has talked to a few attorneys about this who say it is plain English, it is either one or the other. It is not going to exceed 100 percent of the first floor area because once that existing garage is converted into an arts and crafts room, the size of the first floor dwelling is 2,560 square feet; and the garage is only 1,900 square feet so it is well within that and it does not overwhelm the house either. This house is already 1,900 square feet right now. 12 Appeals Comrnission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 13 of 18 Mr. Christenson stated regarding whether this property is used in a reasonable manner, yes, because it really does not need a variance from this part of the Code. Mr. Christenson stated that the code says to increase the size of all structures from 1,400 to 1,900 square feet. That one is very interesting also because it says the combined floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. He asked, however, where is that located? Accessory Uses: (1) a private garage is the frst accessory building. Under one accessory building you are limited to 100 percent of the first floor area or 1,000 square feet if it is less than 1,000. Then, (2) a second garage over 120 square feet provided the following criteria are met: the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. That does not apply to garage #1, that applies to garage #2 because they are looking at multiple buildings; and it is a very different situation if you have two buildings that are accessory buildings on the property. They want to limit the size of those and keep them consistent with the typical size of the property. This property is an acre in size. For the second garage or accessory building there is no second garage or accessory building. There is only one because the one building, the garage he has now, is going to be an arts and crafts room. There is no second one. That code section does not apply. Mr. Christenson stated it was also mentioned about building that garage on the east side and Carry Lyons showed the view where you have about 12,000 square feet to build on. But that 12,000 square feet is on a sloped hill going down. A lot of that is not even buildable area. It would be weird putting a structure into that part of the yard. As it is the drawing he had would totally wipe out the front yard. That • would be an eyesore to the property. Mr. Christenson stated he has looked at a lot of the properties along Rice Creek. The only time there is water in Rice Creek is when the Mississippi goes up during the spring floods, and the water runs from the Mississippi to Rice Creek. The other thing is there have been other variances that have been granted along Rice Creek where that tributary is, and he showed a building that sits right on the lip of Rice Creek which was allowed to be built. There was also a garage on this same property that was built and that needed a variance. He does not know if one was granted or if they were just given a building permit. But with Dr. Dah('s property it was required he had a topographic survey, but he knows this property on the tributary did not have to have one. There is also a home further down on the Mississippi River, and it had an addition just put on which is 100 feet of the river. Another one had an addition put on and is right there on Rice Creek. This house comes right up to Rice Creek. Mr. Christenson stated, therefore, this has been done before on Hartman Circle and it may be done again. To look at what Dr. Dahl is trying to do, he is trying to do it within the Code. Mr. Christenson believes the Code allows Dr. Dahi to build 1,900 square feet. It takes all of these cars out of a driveway that holds 20 cars, and that becomes more of an eyesore than what that garage is going to be. It actually makes that property more attractive. It adds to the value of the home and it will increase the taxes that flow to Fridley because of that. Also, as far as the DNR is concerned, it is not an egregious violation of the Statute because it is within the intent and there is no jeopardy of neither erosion nor to the habitat because of all the trees and everything alongside the house so that does not apply either. There is no reason that they can see not to grant a variance in this situation. John Simmelink, 165 Harlrnan Circle, he is one of seven homes on the river on Hartman Circle. He has 90 feet of river frontage. He pointed out the property referenced earlier is not on Rice Creek. It is on the backwater of Rice Creek. He wanted to make that clear. He is opposed to the variances for a number of reasons. He has great concern for his neighbors and staff presented his disagreements. He particularly 13 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 14 of 18 has concern for his neighbor at 173 Hartman Circle, the neighbor to the north. This would be so close to the lot line that it would be intrusive blocking views. The pictures shown by the petitioner's side are in the summertime of the river. Most of the time the leaves are off the trees, and they have beautiful views of the river all along the circle. The petitioner's home is one of the largest in the neighborhood, and all the other homes on the river, with one exception are quite small. This would just be so overwhelming that it would ruin that streetscape stafftalked about and the residential quality he is concerned about. Mr. Simmelink stated, secondly, he moved to his home in 2005. He has access to the river and is down there every morning without question as he knows his neighbor is. There is just a tremendous amount of wildlife, too numerous to mention: deer, beaver, fox, they had a wolf out on the river this past winter. The eagles, osprey, etc, are down there all the time. Building something so close to the river bluff, even thought it is 27 feet above the river, is going to encroach on that habitat for those animals. Ne is a Friend of the Mississippi, he adheres to their principles, trying to maintain not only the habitat but also the integrity of the bank of the river. Even though this structure would be 27 feet above the river as previously mentioned the varying level of the river and trying to explain the setback, that is almost constant. Now with the controversy over the dam they do not know what that is going to be like. He thinks this structure Dr. Dahl is petitioning for would really affect that habitat. Mr. Simmelink stated this sets a dangerous precedent. If the Commission allowed this, talking about other buildings that do not meet Code, what would stop one of his neighbors or himself from building something that would just be unsightly, ruin the streetscape, residential quality, potentially opening the floodgates and requesting variances for all kinds of things. He respectfully requested the Commission deny this variance. Dale Nawrocki, 173 Hartman Circle, stated he lives just to the north of Dr. Dahl. That is the most misleading presentation he has ever seen. Almost everything the petitioner's representatives showed the Commission had something that was not right in it. He wished the Commission could be there to see this. Dr. Dahi bragged to him about how that new garage was going to come about five feet from Mr. Nawrocki's house. There is not a whole lot of room to put the garage in. The garage is about the size of another house in between their two houses. Dr. Dahl already throws a ton of garbage down the hill towards the river. There are old tires, Mr. Nawrocki pulled a battery out of there one time. Dr. Dahl has tried to get everybody else to sign something saying it's OK to build the garage but no one will sign. People are afraid to stand up to him because they feel they will get sued. Mr. Nawrocki does not want this, and he cannot believe this is happening. He did not meet Dr. Dahl the first five years he lived there, but when he did, he came out guns a blazing and it is harassment. When he sees him he is usually preriy difficult to deal with. Commissioner Jenkins stated his first question is about the 1,OOO.or 100 percent of the square feet of the house. Mr. Hickok replied, Robert Christenson, as he was doing his presentation referred to that section of the Code that talks about not to exceed 1,000 square feet or l00 percent of first floor living area of the home. What is important about this section of the Code is also reflective of the time when the State Building Code would not allow a structure over 1,000 square feet. To exceed 1,000 square feet of the garage is not only a violation of this ordinance, but of the Building Code at the time this language was drafted. It was not meant to be, take your pick, it was it cannot exceed the first floor living area of the home or the 1,000 square feet. The next section becomes more convoluted. When you factor in the Building Code did not allow provisions for anything over 1,000 square feet in a single residential garage. 14 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 15 of 18 Commission Anderson stated regardless of the size of the garage, it does meet the setback to the north, correct? Is it a 5-foot setback run between the two properties along the easement there? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is conect. Chairperson Sielaff stated the point was made this was an over acre lot. Since this is a large lot, having this structure on there, is it going to be any worse than any other smaller lot. How much of this property is made up of the bluff? Does that cut down on the lot you see? Is not a lot of this lot on the bluff? Mr. Hickok replied, that is a very good point. The relative impact is far greater than what is being suggested by it being over an acre lot and this is only "X" number of square feet. It really contradicts the architect's own statement about the buildable area on the lot. The reality is this small triangle and everything else becomes difficult to build on. You put that many square feet on an area that is difficult to put structure in because of the slopes and topography in there, it further drives the point this is not appropriate. It really does impact the land in a way that if they were talking about an acre on flat land they might look at it differently. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to speak to the statement in the hardship statement and also the presentation to other properties that have been remodeled or had construction to them within the last five years as stated? In his time on the Commission he does not recall any variances coming before them like that. Mr. Hickok stated relative to the statement about the acre of land and really even in the hardship statement, the petitioner stating that he has a large piece of land as if that is a hardship, staff did suggest early on that if they wanted to approach this as a text amendment and say, the ordinance is inept in that it is not covering consideration for people who have larger lots. A petitioner could come to the City and say, what about those people with larger lots, would you be willing to allow a bit larger garage on a property that has a larger dimension. Of course you are seeing a variance request tonight instead of a text amendment request. Mr. Hickok referred to the photo the Mr. Christenson showed of the first home off of East River Road, which is located at 191 Hartman Circle. It is important to note that the existence for that home and date it was built, put it into a pre-existing, non-conforming status, just like Dr. Dahl's by virtue of when they were built and what the Code was at that time. The owner of 191 Hartman Circle did come before the Commission in about 1996, and their variance was to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet to construct an attached garage. T�e home had no garage and had no place to put it. By current standards, needing a 25-foot front yard setback, they would not have needed a variance at all. Regarding another home referenced as being right on the bluff, again, it was built that way and recently an addition was built. It had a fire and in reviewing the non-conforming Statute in the State of Minnesota it states you can rebuild in the footprint of a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Originally what burned down was a hot tub room and what was built was a living room. Staff did go out and look at it and spent a lot of time out there. Mr. Christenson referred to the house with the addition. The room was an outdoor hot tub that had a fence around it. It was not a room. It did not have a roof, etc. The house that was allowed the garage, they also built a large shed right on the edge of the bank. They needed a garage and a shed? He does not think there was any variance given for that. If there was a variance given, why were they given a variance 15 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 16 of 18 for a garage and a shed. On a personal note he was known Dr. Dahl for five and one-half years; and he is one of the most kind, giving, caring people he has never met. He would not be Mr. Christenson's client if he was anything different. Mr. Nawrocki stated the picture that was shown was of a neighbor, not on the river, it is up the street, it is at 191 HaRman Circle. They had an old shed there and, when they remodeled the house, they put another shed in that same spot. Also, the hot tub room at the other example that was provided, did have a roof on it, it was enclosed. It just is not true that it was just a deck without a roof. It does not seem these guys can go about this in an honest way. Every example they have is misleading or they are not telling the Commission the truth. If this were to go up, Dr. Dahl would not stick by the rules and has said if he was not given permission he was going to build this garage anyways. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins to ciose the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Jenkins stated what he is not comfortable with is has been covered pretty well by City staff is the size of this structure, and the environmental impact. It just seems there is a better way to do this. Commissioner Anderson stated ultimately a lot of what was presented tonight was driven around the aesthetics; this is going to be a pleasing structure. He has no doubt that is the case with the drawings and the sketches shown. It looks to be something that is well-integrated into the house. The one problem he falls back on is that, although there was a lot of testimony given surrounding how it is going to fit together and that it does not really encroach on the bluff, this is a good spot because the neighbor to the east will not be affected, or views wil) not be affected, ultimately there was very little conversation surrounding the practical difficulties. He was asking himself if he had this property, this seems like a good place to put the garage; but as a commissioner, unless they can prove there are practical difficulties he does not see having a garage where you want it to be and where it looks nice when there are other options available such as closer to the street, a smaller garage, other location as practicai difficulties. Chairperson Sielaff stated this is a critical area and there are requirements in this area. The criteria is more stringent now that it is a critical area, and the Commission needs to follow what the requirements are now. It does not meet those criteria. He did not hear anything to address practical difficulties as a way that it should not follow the critical areas criteria. Also, he does think this large garage would impact the neighborhood. They cut a third of the property off because it is on a bluff. That garage is going to look big on that property. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIEA MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance reducing the bluff setback from the 40 feet to 11 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. 16 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 17 of 18 UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the size of a ls� accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNA1vIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of a home from 5 feet to 64 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION denying Variance, VAR #11-02, by Wayne Dahl, DC, generally located at 177 Hartman Circle, in its entirety. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMNIISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Ms. tromberg stated the Sandee's site on Mississippi Street and Central Avenue has been cleared, and Trident velopment is in the process of developing a 70-unit senior development on that site. They had their groun aking last week. Mr. Hickok stated ncil and Parks and Recreation Commission have been evaluating Chapter 510 of the Tree Preservation or ' nce in parks and public lands. One of the things important to note is recently there was an amendment to t section of Code and, after further analysis by staff, it became pretty clear that the requirements of 510 made ' entirely onerous for removing trees on boulevards that would still be considered public property but to eve ne's recognition because of damaging infrastructure, etc. As a resu(t there is a repeal being considered by uncil right now of this. $oth the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission went back eviewed and concurred with the staff recommendation to repeal that section of Code and replace it with a p ' about removal in parks and on public lands and involving the Forester with that decision-making proc . The City isn't giving up protection or preservation of trees. However, it is being considered becau of when there are situations where it is important to get the trees out, the process of going through the nning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council is not an efficient form o overnment and is certainly not the intent of the ordinance. The chapter was actually adopted back at the of some urging by some citizens to have a golf course instead of the Springbrook Nature Center and if y were to remove more than three trees you had to go through this process. 17 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 18 of 18 K� MOTION by Commiss� r Jenkins seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A UNANIMOUS CE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT S:5 . Respectfully submitted by, \ �•�� Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 1�:3 : AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2011 CI7Y OF FRIDLEY Date: October 17, 2011 � To: William Burns, City Manager� From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #11-02, by Wayne Dahl, DC The petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting approval from the City, to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order for staff to permit Dr. Dahl's construction plans, five variances will be required. 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a 15` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. The fifth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. The petitioner would like to construct a 1,900 sq. ft. garage on the north side of the house that will be attached to the house by a breezeway. The proposed garage would be 5 ft. from the north property line and 56 ft. from the front property line, which meets code requirements. The existing garage will be modified to living space and the existing shed will be removed. Due to the size and placement of the new accessory structure, five variances are being requested. CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family. It is also located in the 0-1, Creek and River Protection District, in the 0-2, Critical Area District and the 0-7, Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, all code requirements within those districts apply to this property. Though a portion of the petitioner's lot is within the floodway, the proposed accessory structure location will not impact the floodway. The 0-1 Overlay district was adopted in 1973 and the O-2 Overlay district was adopted in 1977 and as a result, the petitioner's previous building requests have had to comply with those requirements. The State mandated that cities adopt a Shoreland Overlay District and as a result, adoption of the City of Fridley's Shoreland Overlay district occurred in 2005. 63 The 0-2, Critical Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District require that all structures be setback 100 ft. from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River. Those two sections of code also require that all structures be placed not less than 40 ft. from the top of the bluffline of the Mississippi River. • These requirements are in place to preserve bluff vegetation for natural habitat and to prevent erosion. The R-1, Single Family section of code requires a private garage as the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100�0 of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. • This is required to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures and to prevent the accessory structure from dominating the size of the principal structure, which is the home. The R-1, Single Family section of code also requires that the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. • This is required to also maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of accessory buildings, therefore allowing adequate room for open space and efiminating the overcrowding of the residential area. Lastly, the R-1 code requires that in no case may a garage extend more than 5 ft. in front of the home. • This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. 25 ft. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhood is not adversely changed by a protruding garage. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the October 5, 2011, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #11-02. After receiving comments from the petitioner's representatives and the public, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of all 5 variance requests. TNE MOTION CARRIED UNANlMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. The findings of fact for denial of all five variances are as follows: • No practical difficulties exist on the site that would warrant further impacts to the ordinary high water mark setback and bluff setback. • No practical difficulties exist on the site that would warrant an accessory structure to be larger than the City code would require. • Impacts to the Natural Resources defined in the code and Comprehensive Plan — Mississippi River and Manomin Park • Impacts to the bluff vegetation and natural habitat • Impacts to the view of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way. • Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property which wouldn't require variances. .• City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #11-02 October 5, 2011 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Wayne Dahl, DC 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: 1. Variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level 2. Variance reducing the setback from the 40 ft. setback from the bluff 3. Variance increasing the size of a 15` accessory structure 4. Variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property 5. Variance increasing the 5 ft. setback of an accessory structure in front of a home Existing Zoning: R-1(Single Family Residential) Location: 177 Hartman Circle Lot Size: 42,688 sq. ft. .98 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home with attached garage and detached shed. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Rice Creek (dry bed) & Water and P W: Mississippi River & Water Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as a single family land use Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.32.8.A.(2)and 205.28.8.C.(2) requires a 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level. 205.32.8.A.(3) and 205.28.8.C.(1) requires a 40 ft. setback from the top of the bluff. 205.07.1.6.(1) requires that a first accessory building shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. 205.07.1.6.(2).(a) requires a combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. 205.07.3.D.(1) requires that a garage not extend more than 5 ft. in front of the home. Zoning History: 1955 — Lot is platted. 1957 — House, garage and porch constructed. 1992 — Addition to the home and deck. 1994 — Variance approved to allow the construction of a shed. 1994 — Construction of shed. Legal Description of Property: Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Hartman Circle provides access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Large residential lot located along the Mississippi River and Rice Creek. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order to achieve that, 5 variances will be required. 1. To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. To reduce the bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. To increase the size of a 1�` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. To increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "My "plight" is 1 have a large home (1,900 sq. ft. first floor) on a beautifull+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. 1 pay significant property taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but 1 om discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property becouse of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created by myself as landowner."— also see attached narrative - Wayne Dahl, DC SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests. ➢ No practical difficulties exist on site. ➢ Potential impacts to Natural Resources; the Mississippi River and Monomin Park/Rice Creek . ➢ Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way ➢ Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY�DEADLINE City Council — October 24, 2011 60 Day — October 31, 2011 60 Day Extension — December 30, 2011 Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #11-02 REQUEST The petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting approval from the City, to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property which is located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order for staff to permit Dr. Dahl's construction plans, five variances will be required. 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 ft. to 78 ft. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a 15t accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. 5. The fifth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. It should also be noted that the placement of existing house and garage are deficient in meeting the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River and the 40 ft, bluff setback. As a result, the existing home is considering pre-existing non-conforming. In the event that the home was destroyed, it would be able to be re-built to the exact same footprint that exists today. Recognition of these non-conforming setbacks should be part of this variance request. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "My "plight" is 1 have a large home (1,900 sq. ft. ffrst floorJ on a beautifu/ 1+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. 1 pay significant property taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am distouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neifher which were created by myself as landowner."— also see attached narrative SITE DESCRITPION AND HISTORY The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are the properties to the north and east. The property is bordered by the Mississippi River to the west and Manomin Park and Rice Creek to the south. The property is located on Hartman Circle, which is accessed off of East River Road. The existing home was constructed in 1957. In 1990, the petitioner requested several variances to allow the construction of a 1,000 sq. ft. accessory structure on his lot. Those variances were to: 1) reduce the side yard setback from 5 ft. to 1 ft. , 2) to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory structure from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,670 sq. ft., 3) to aUow the construction of an accessory structure in the front yard, 4) to increase the altowed height of a fence in the front yard from 4 ft. to 7 ft., 5) to reduce the required setback from a bluff line overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 ft. to 22 ft. This variance was tabled indefinitely at the request of Dr. Dahl. An addition to the home and deck were constructed in 1992. That addition .. - Wayne Dahl, DC . .. ip �. fA9 �. W ��. 1]7 . Ai : u� . � . e{MAN CIR. NE � � J � u� r us . ua uo ia -� . �1 � . � � if0 11s : � UT .., . _ .« ,,, „o ,,, �„ �. ,°' ; ,,, ,» __ � ' ,a, au � � � a _ � �� Yi � y�A�MAN Ctq IiE' : As �. WA .,,,; �,.�;.a� � , � 1 involved the constructed of the four season porch on the southeast side of the home and reconstruction of the existing deck with an addition to it. In 1994, the City Council granted a variance to reduce the setback from the top of the bluffline overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 ft. to 1.5 ft., and to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, to allow the construction of an 8 ft. by 15 ft. storage shed. That shed was then constructed in 1994. The petitioner has met with City staff several times over the tast year and a half to develop a plan that would allow the construction of a new accessory structure on the subject property that would meet code requirements. Although, staff has determined that it is feasible to construct a new accessory structure on this lot which meets code requirements, the petitioner has decided to seek variances instead. CODE REQUIREMENTS The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family. It is also located in the O-1, Creek and River Protection District, in the 0-2, Critical Area District and the 0-7, Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, all code requirements within those districts apply to this property. Though a portion of the petitioner's lot is within the floodway, the proposed accessory structure location will not impact the floodway. The O-1 Overlay district was adopted in 1973 and the 0-2 Overlay district was adopted in 1977 and as a result, the petitioner's previous building requests have had to comply with those requirements. The State mandated that cities adopt a Shoreland Overlay District and as a result, adoption of the City of Fridley's Shoreland Overlay district occurred in 2005. The O-2, Critica! Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District require that all structures be setback 100 ft. from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River. Those two sections of code also require that all structures be placed not less than 40 ft. from the top of the bluffline of the Mississippi River. • These requirements are in place to preserve bluff vegetation for natural habitat and to prevent erosion. The R-1, Single Family section of code requires a private garage as the first accessory building. !t shall not exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. • This is required to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures and to prevent the accessory structure from dominating the size of the principal structure, which is the home. The R-1, Single Family section of code also requires that the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. • This is required to also maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of accessory buildings, therefore allowing adequate room for open space and eliminating the overcrowding of the residential area. Lastly, the R-1 code requires that in no case may a garage extend more than 5 ft. in front of the home. • This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. 25 ft. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhood is not adversely changed by a protruding �arage. 2 67 ANALYSIS The petitioner would like to construct a 1,900 sq. ft. garage on the north side of the house that will be attached to the house by a breezeway. The proposed garage would be 5 ft. from the north property line and 56 ft. from the front property line, which meets code requirements. The existing garage will be modified to living space and the existing shed will be removed. Due to the size and placement of the new accessory structure, five variances are being requested. �� , ., x � , r � � HAwr�1�.3v � . � l�«d.....�ti , � (.IftC':.E.: Proposed Structure � ''� �' �,�� v� w.. � r ��a+ I a' �* � . a . ,. , �, 9'- . _.__ . . ± .:. , , � `d9'+�a.. 1 ..�� J . . .' ,,,: x .. • . F . � ..... _..... �, �� _� �� ; � �- �� : � ; � Blu�'F Setback , � � � ,,.,r., " ;, -'�HL Setback - � �� ;" �" -' " , � �;' ».� ,; .._ [ � � �-' �yt = ��. 7 � :�� . � �� R �`� `� ) y+.a I'I``. J � � �. g., s � �� .g1��1 � -. � y� f �nar , �3 : • . � �2 '�-.,. i ""1"'r q:. ' , :,' � ~ 1r �J ', t � �% � - + r '�''t- , � �.. x �` � � '` � ,�� " ��,� ., l. , . � �'�l T � t� g � �-^� �VVV '♦: '$' ry� D.� 4 g .. .,. _ . .. - ' -. � . � C�.... �j a .. ; � a _ - .. ff,•r , �� , �q w . _ � �. -' r� .. .`t., . � f � . .. �� ..... ..... e� � - �f� �!p . t 'r r,�� : � : ` J ,' �'., '-�) ��: � ..r � ��yj ��. !��. ._ . "' = ��X A �` . i,'`� � { ,. - �� ' � �� t : 1 a � � �� t �$,'' ~ � f �i , - � - . m q � - � �° _ t� /��++` J' i 1 �' ' 'G' �-- � ' � �'' ��'��' � . ^ �. p ' , . _.�i,�.cr . t £�q,.. ; � A..'T , �,. ..�_ _....__ _ f � 'M'4 . `.. {� -_..� _..._. ' j /. V~ � _ :,, PRACTICIAL DIFFICUUTES As the Commission is aware, recent changes in the State Legislature has somewhat changed how City's review variances. Instead of using the term "undue hardship", staff now needs to determine if rrpractical difficulties" exist before a variance can be granted. As a result, before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that if the variance is granted, it would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is also their job to prove that enforcement of the code would cause practical difficulties to exist. Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in taw that cities must apply when considering application for variances. It is a three-factor test that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance. Those three factors are: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. 2. The property owner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3 68 City Staff has not been able to identify any practical difficulties, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. In reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of practical difficulties and developed the following analysis: 1. Variance — To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 ft. to 78 ft. and 2. Variance — To reduce the required bluff setback from 40 ft. to 11 ft. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o The purpose of the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high level and the 40 ft. setback from the bluff line is to: 1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River, 2) prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources, 3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River, 4) to protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi Corridor. Constructing a garage that will further impact these required setbacks from the Mississippi River and the bluff line would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. However, the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting Fridley's natural environment which includes the Mississippi River and Manomim Park to the south of the subject property. One of the Natural Resources polities within the Comprehensive Plan states "the Mississippi River is a prominent feature of Fridley and the River's health is important to Fridley's vitality. The City should pursue clean water initiatives, including storm water public education and using plants in rain gardens and on lakeshores to filter storm water run- off." Further impacting the setbacks required in the Critical Area and Shoreland Overlays could disturb the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage along the River bluff that would overall impact the quality of the Mississippi River, which is a Natural Resource. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing use of the property is considered reasonable, with the residential use of a house and garage, however, the proposed construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure within the required setback from the ordinary high water level and bluff is unreasonable. The petitioner has the option to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. code complaint accessory structure on the east and south sides of the exiting house that wouldn't impact these setback requirements. Relocating the proposed accessory structure 4 69 would not further impact the already non-conforming setbacks and would still provide a large enough structure, the petitioner desires, to store/park vehicles. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o The subject property is bordered by the Mississippi River and Manomin Park, which would be considered positive attributes to the property; however they are not unique or exclusive to this property. As pointed out above, other options do exist that would allow for the construction of a new accessory structure that would comply with code requirements. There is no unique terrain limiting the petitioner from locating the garage elsewhere on the property. • WiN the variance, if qranted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The purpose of the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level and the 40 ft. setback from the bluff line is to protect and preserve the natural amenity of the Mississippi River. Further impacting this setback could result in future slope erosion, which would impact the neighborhood and the surrounding community. 3. Variance — To increase the size of a 1�` accessory structure from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. • Is ihe variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City code requires that the 15` accessory structure not exceed 100�0 of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. The purpose of this section of code is to maintain a residential quality in a neighborhood. It is also required so that living space is the dominant feature of the home. The petitioner has articulated in his narrative that because his house is 1,900 sq. ft., Code would allow him to have a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure without a variance. Staff's interpretation of this section of code is that the 15L accessory structure can't exceed the square footage of the first floor area of a home or a maximum 1,000 sq. ft. (For example, if you have a 640 sq. ft. house, you would be limited to a maximum of 640 sq. ft. garage. If you have a 1,900 sq. ft. house, you would be allowed a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. for a first accessory structure.) Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney that Staff is interpreting the code correctly. Therefore, allowing a garage in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. in size would require a variance and would not be in harmony with the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposa/ put the property to use in a reasonab/e manner? o The construction of a new code complaint 1,000 sq. ft. accessory structure would be considered reasonable. The average two-car garage is approximately 500 sq. ft. However, a 1,900 sq. ft. garage, placed in non-compliance with setback and size requirements, when other options exist on the site, would be considered unreasonable. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require an accessory structure larger than code would allow. The petitioner desire to have a larger than average accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the /ocality? o The public purpose of this code requirement is to help maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 sq. ft. accessory structure essentially in 5 70 front of the petitioner's home, will alter the character of the neighborhood. The 0-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited." Constructing the garage in the proposed location will impact the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of- way. 4. Variance — To increase the size of all accessory struttures on the property from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City code requires that the 15L accessory structure not exceed the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. In addition it states that the total of all accessory structures on a property shall not exceed 1,400 sq. ft. (For example, if tl�e first accessory structure is 1,000 sq. ft., an additiona/ 400 sq. ft. shed wou/d be allowed.J This code is in place to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of all accessory building, therefore allowing adequate room for open space and eliminate the condition of overcrowding the residentia! area. The petitioner's desire to have a garage larger than code would allow is not in harmony with the code requirements. Is tl�e variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plpn? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o Constructing one garage that is larger than the City code allows for all accessory structures on a single-family lot wouldn't be reasonabie. As pointed out previously, options do exist on this site that would allow for construction of a new accessory structure that would be 1,000 sq. ft. in size, which would comply with code requirements and still allow for a 4 stall garage. Are there unique circumstances ro the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require a larger than code compliant garage. The petitioner's desire to have a larger than code complaint accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The public purpose of this code requirement is to maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 sq. ft. garage in the front of the petitioner home, will alter the character of the neighborhood. The O-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the deve/opment is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of- way shall be proi�ibited." Constructing the garage of this size in the proposed location will definitely be impact views of the river for the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and it will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of-way. 6 71 5. Variance — To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 ft. to 64 ft. Is the variance in harmony with rhe purpose and intent of the ordinance? o This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. 25 ft. The reduction in the front yard setback would allow property owners to construct an addition to the front of the home, but by limiting how far the garage can protrude in front of the home it will prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. The character of the neighborhood would also be adversely changed by a protruding garage. The proposed garage will protrude 64 ft. in front of the home, which will dominate the streetscape from Hartman Circle, therefore not meeting the intent of this ordinance. •!s the variance consistent with the Comprehensive P/an? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and witl continue to be used; therefore the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing garage, which was constructed in 1957, would be considered pre-existing conforming, because it extends in front of the home by more than 5 ft. To further allow the garage to extend into the front yard would be in direct contrast to what the City was trying to accomplish when adopting this section of code. Though the proposed accessory structure would be 56 ft. from the front property line, permitting it to be constructed as proposed is exactly what this code section is trying to avoid; allowing the garage to dominate the view from the public right-of-way. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o Again, no unique circumstances exist on this property what would allow a garage to be placed this far in front of the home, because other options do exist on this property. Moving the proposed accessory structure to the east side of the home would potentially still require the structure to be located in front of the home, however a reduction in the size of the structure and creative architecture through the use of a walkway and roof extension or pergola, could eliminate the need for this type of variance. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. Granting a variance to allow the accessory structure to protrude 64 ft. in front of the home will definitely change the overall character of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. In summary, the analysis above explains why staff recommends denial of each variance request. It is the City's job to protect the natural resources that the City of Fridley has to offer, and allowing a structure like the one proposed to be constructed that will further impacts required Critical Area and Shoreland setbacks doesn't help protect that resource. There it too much potential for disturbance and alteration to the topography, vegetation and drainage by allowing the construction of the proposed accessory structure within the required setbacks. There will also be visual impacts from the river, neighboring properties and the public right-of-way. Practical difficulties don't exist when it comes to allowing a structure to be constructed that is larger than what code would allow. The petitioner's desire to have a larger accessory structure than code would allow is not a practical difficulty. 7 72 COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) City staff asked the DNR to offer their opinion on the petitioner's variance request in relation to the potential impacts to the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback. The e-mail they sent is attached for your review. Though they didn't offer a conclusive recommendation, they did question why the structure couldn't be moved outside the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback in its current configuration or reduced in size to meet setback requirements. They also expressed the need to consider whether the size of the proposed development could disturb or alter the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage and impacts to the visuat character of the river corridor. Lastly, they inquired about the amount of hard surface the proposed structure would put on the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecological function of the river bluff system and increase runoff that can lead to slope instability, erosion, and sedimentation. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS Staff heard from the neighbor at 173 Hartman Circte, who is directly north of the subject property. He's not in favor of the proposed variances. He is concerned about the placement of the proposed structure and the potential impacts it will have on his property. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests. • No practical difficulties exist on site • Potential impacts to Natural Resources; the Mississippi River and Monomin Park/Rice Creek • Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way • Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property 8 73 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING October 5, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sielaff called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Del Jenkins Christopher Anderson Brad Sielaff MEMBERS ABSENT: Blaine Jones OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Stacy Stromberg, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 6, 2011 MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the minutes. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Consideration of a Variance, VAR #11-02, by Wayne Dahl, DC, generally located at 177 Hartman Circle. Five variances are required in order to allow the construction ot a new garage. 1. Variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet. 2. Variance reducin� the bluff setback from the 40 feet to 11 feet. 3. Variance increasinE the size of a 13` accessorv structure from 1,000 sauare feet to 1,900 sauare feet. 4. Variance increasin� the size of all accessorv structure on a arouertv from 1,400 square feet to 1.900 spuare feet. 5. Variance increasin� t6e setback of an attached accessorv structure located in front of a home from 5 feet to 64 feet. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. 1 74 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 2 of 18 Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner, Dr. Dahl, is requesting approval from the City, to allow the construction of a new attached garage at his property located at 177 Hartman Circle. In order for staff to permit Dr. Dahl's construction plans, five variances will be required. 1. The first variance is to reduce the required setback from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River from 100 feet to 78 feet. 2. The second variance is to reduce the required bluff setback from 40 feet to l l feet. 3. The third variance is to increase the size of a ls' accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 syuare feet. 4. The fourth variance is to increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. 5. The ffth variance is to increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 feet to 64 feet. Ms. Stromberg stated it should also be noted that the placement of existing house and garage are defcient in meeting the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River and the 40-foot bluff setback. As a result the existing home is considering pre-existing non-conforming. In the event the home was destroyed, it would be able to be re-built to the exact same footprint that exists today. Recognition of these non-conforming setbacks should be part of this variance request. Ms. Stromberg stated petitioner's statement of hardship reads: "My `plight' is I have a large home (1,900 square foot first floor) on a beautiful 1+ acre site adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. I pay significant properly taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created by myself as landowner." . Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are the properties to the north and east. The property is bordered by the Mississippi River to the west and Manomin Park and Rice Creek to the south. The property is located on Hartman Circle, which is accessed off of East River Road. The existing home was constructed in 1957. In 1990 the petitioner requested several variances to allow the construction of a 1,000 square foot accessory structure on his lot. Those variances were to: (1) reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 feet; (2) to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory structure from 1,400 square feet to 1,670 square feet; (3) to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the front yard; (4) to increase the allowed height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 7 feet; and (5) to reduce the required setback from a bluff line overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 feet to 22 feet. This variance was tabled indefinitely at the request of Dr. Dahl. Ms. Stromberg stated an addition to the home and deck were constructed in 1992. That addition involved the construction of the four-season porch on the southeast side of the home and reconstruction of the existing deck with an addition to it. In 1994 the City Council granted a variance to reduce the setback from the top of the bluff line overlooking the Mississippi River from 40 feet to 1.5 feet, and to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, to allow the construction of an 8-foot by 15-foot storage shed. That shed was then constructed in 1994. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has met with City staff several times over the last year and a half to develop a plan that would allow the construction of a new accessory structure on the subject property that woutd meet Code requirements. Although staff has determined it is feasible to construct a new accessory structure on this lot which meets Code requirements, the petitioner has decided to seek variances instead. aT5 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 3 of 18 Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family. It is also located in the O-1 (Creek and River Protection District), in the O-2 (Critical Area District), and the O-7 (Shoreland Overlay District). Therefore, all Code requirements within those districts apply to this property. Though a portion of the petitioner's lot is within the floodway, the proposed accessory structure location will not impact the floodway. The O-1 Overlay district was adopted in 1973 and the O-2 Overlay district was adopted in 1977 and, as a result, the petitioner's previous building requests have had to comply with those requirements. The State mandated that cities adopt a Shoreland Overlay District and, as a result, adoption of the City of Fridley's Shoreland Overlay district occurred in 2005. Ms. Stromberg stated the O-2, Critical Area District and the O-7, Shoreland Overlay District require that all structures be set back 100 feet from the ordinary high water level from the Mississippi River. Those two sections of Code also require that all structures be placed not less than 40 feet from the top of the bluff line of the Mississippi River. • These requirements are in place to preserve bluff vegetation for natural habitat and to prevent erosion. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-1, Single Family section of Code requires a private garage as the first accessory building. It shall not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. • This is required to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the size of accessory structures and to prevent the accessory structure from dominating the size of the principal structure, which is the home. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-1, Single Family section of Code also requires that the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square feet. • This is reyuired to also maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the tota) square footage of accessory buildings, therefore, allowing adequate room for open space and eliminating the overcrowding of the residential area. Ms. Stromberg stated, lastly, the R-1 code requires that in no case may a garage extend more than 5 feet in front of the home. • This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. By limiting the garage addition to 5 feet in front of the house, the character of the neighborhood is not adversely changed by a protruding garage. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner would like to construct a 1,900 square foot garage on the north side of the house that will be attached to the house by a breezeway. The proposed garage would be 5 feet from the north property line and 56 feet from the front property line, which meets Code requirements. The existing garage will be modified to living space, and the existing shed will be removed. Because of the size and placement of the new accessory structure, five variances are being reyuested. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated as the Commission is aware, recent changes in the State Legislature have somewhat changed how cities review variances. Instead of using the term, "undue hardship," staff now neecls to determine if "practical difficulties" exist before a variance can be granted. As a result, before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that if the variance is granted, it would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is also their job to prove that enforcement of �T6 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 4 of 18 the Code would cause �ractical difficulties to exist. Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering application far variances. It is a three-factor test that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance. Those three factors are: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. 2. The property owner's problem is because of circumstances uniyue to the property not caused by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, wi11 not atter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Hickok stated City staff has not been able to identify any practical difficulties, as defined by the law; that would allow staff to recommend anything but denial of this request. Ms. Stromberg stated in reviewing the petitioner's request, staff applied the legal definition of practical difficulties and developed the following analysis: 1. Variance — To reduce the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet and 2. Variance — To reduce the required bluff setback from 40 feet to 11 feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o The purpose of the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high level and the 40-foot setback from the bluff line is to: (1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River; (2) prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources; (3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi Rive; and (4) protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi Corridor. Constructing a garage that will further impact these required setbacks from the Mississippi River and the bluff line would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the properly is being used and will continue to be used. Therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. However, the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting Fridley's natural environment which includes the Mississippi River and Manomin Park to the south of the subject property. One of the Natural Resources policies within the Comprehensive Plan states, "the Mississippi River is a prominent feature of Fridley, and the River's health is important to Fridley's vitality. The City should pursue clean water initiatives, including storm water public education and using plants in rain gardens and on lakeshores to fi(ter storm water run-off." Further impacting the setbacks required in the Critical Area and Shoreland Overlays could disturb the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage along the River bluff that would overall impact the quatity of the Mississippi River, which is a Natural Resource. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing use of the property is considered reasonable, with the residential use of a house and garage. However, the proposed construction of a 1,900 square foot accessory structure within the required setback from the ordinary high water level and bluff is unreasonable. The petitioner has the option to construct a 1,000 square foot Cade compliant accessory structure on the east and south sides of the existing house that would not impact these setback requirements. Relocating the proposed accessory T7 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 5 of 18 structure would not further impact the already non-conforming setbacks and wou(d still provide a large enough structure in which the petitioner desires to store/park vehicles. Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o The subject property is bordered by the Mississippi River and Manomin Park, which would be considered positive attributes to the property; however, they are not unique or exclusive to this properly. As pointed out above, other options do exist that would allow for the construction of a new accessory structure that would comply with code requirements. There is no unique terrain limiting the petitioner from locating the garage elsewhere on the property. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The purpose of the 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water level and the 40-foot setback from the bluff line is to protect and preserve the natural amenity of the Mississippi River. Further impacting this setback could result in future slope erosion, which would impact the neighborhood and the surrounding community. 3. Variance — To increase the size of a 1 S` accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City Code requires that the 1 S` accessory structure not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. The purpose of this section of Code is to maintain a residential quality in a neighborhood. It is also required so that living space is the dominant feature of the home. The petitioner has articulated in his narrative that because his house is 1,900 square feet, Code would allow him to have a 1,900 square foot accessory structure without a variance. Staffs interpretation of this section of Code is that the 1 S` accessory structure cannot exceed the square footage of the first floor area of a home or a maximum 1,000 square feet. (For example, if you have a 640 square foot house, you would be limited to a maximum of a 640 square foot garage. If you have a 1,900 square foot house, you would be allowed a maximum of 1,000 square feet for a first accessory structure.) Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney that staff is interpreting the Code correctly. Therefore, allowing a garage in excess of 1,000 square feet in size would require a variance and would not be in harmony with the ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The construction of a new Code complaint 1,000 square foot accessory structure would be considered reasonable. The average two-car garage is approximately 500 square feet. However, a 1,900 square foot garage, placed in non-compliance with setback and size requirements, when other options exist on the site, would be considered unreasonable. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require an accessory structure larger than Code would allow. The petitioner desiring to have a larger than average accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The pablic purpose of this Code requirement is to help maintain a residential yuality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 square foot accessory structure 578 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 6 of 18 essentially in front of the petitioner's home will alter the character of the neighborhood. The O-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the expansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited. " Constructing the garage in the proposed location will impact the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle and will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of- way. 4. Variance — To increase the size of all accessory structures on the property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o City Code requires that the ls` accessory structure not exceed the first floor area of the dwelling unit or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. In addition it states that the total of all accessory structures on a property shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. (For exampde, if the first accessory structure is 1, 000 square feet, an additional 400 square foot shed would be allowed.) This Code is in place to maintain the residential quality of a neighborhood by limiting the total square footage of all accessory building, therefore, allowing adequate room for open space and eliminate the condition of overcrowding the residential area. The petitioner's desire to have a garage larger than Code would allow is not in harmony with the Code requirements. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o Constructing one garage that is larger than the City Code allows for all accessory structures on a single-family lot would not be reasonable. As pointed out previously, options do exist on this site that would allow for construction of a new accessory structure that would be 1,000 square feet in size, which would comply with code requirements and still allow for a four-sta11 garage. • Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o There are no unique circumstances on the subject property that would require a larger than Code compliant garage. The petitioner's desire to have a larger than Code compliant accessory structure is not a unique condition related to the property. • Will the variance, af granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The public purpose of this Code requirement is to maintain a residential quality within the neighborhood. Constructing a 1,900 square foot garage in the front of the petitioner's home will alter the character of the neighborhood. The O-2, Critical Area ordinance specially states that the "development of new or the ezpansion of existing structures shall be placed so that the development is consistent with the preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties on both sides of the river and by the public. The walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited. " Constructing the garage of this size in the proposed location will definitely impact views of the river for the neighbors to the north at 173 Hartman Circle, and it will change the overall view of the subject property/neighborhood from the public right-of-way. [:tJ � Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 7 of 18 5. Variance — To increase the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of the home from 5 feet to 64 feet. • Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o This requirement was put into place in 2000 with adoption of the Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. The reduction in the front yard setback would allow property owners to construct an addition to the front of the home, but by limiting how far the garage can protrude in front of the home it will prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. The character of the neighborhood would also be adversely changed by a protruding garage. The proposed garage will protrude 64 feet in front of the home, which will dominate the streetscape from Hartman Circle, therefore, not meeting the intent of this ordinance. • Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as residential, which is how the property is being used and will continue to be used; therefore, the use of the property is consistent with the Plan. • Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The existing garage, which was constructed in 1957, would be considered pre-existing conforming, because it extends in front of the home by more than 5 feet. To further allow the garage to extend into the front yard would be in direct contrast to what the City was trying to accomplish when adopting this section of code. Though the proposed accessory structure would be 56 feet frvm the front properiy line, permitting it to be constructed as proposed is exactly what this Code section is trying to avoid; allowing the garage to dominate the view from the public right-of-way. • Are there unique ci�cumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o Again, no unique circumstances exist on this property what would allow a garage to be placed this far in front of the home, because other options do exist on this property. Moving the proposed accessory structure to the east side of the home would potentially still require the structure to be located in front of the home; however, a reduction in the size of the structure and creative architecture through the use of a walkway and roof extension or pergola could eliminate the need for this type of variance. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o The reason for this requirement is to prevent the garage from dominating the streetscape in Fridley. Granting a variance to allow the accessory structure to protrude 64 feet in front of the home will definitely change the overall character of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. Ms. Stromberg stated, in summary, the analysis above explains why staff recommends denial of each variance request. It is the City's job to protect the natural resources the City of Fridley has to offer, and allowing a structure like the one proposed to be constructed that will further impact required Critical Area and Shoreland setbacks does not help protect that resource. There is too much potential for disturbance and alteration to the topography, vegetation, and drainage by allowing the construction of the proposed accessory structure within the required setbacks. There will also be visual impacts from the river, neighboring properties, and the public right-of-way. Ms. Stromberg stated practical difficulties do not exist when it comes to allowing a structure to be constructed that is larger than what Code would altow. The petitioner's desire to have a larger accessory structure than Code would allow is not a practical difficulty. �� Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 8 of 18 Ms. Stromberg stated City staff asked the DNR to offer their opinion on the petitioner's variance request in relation to the potential impacts to the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback and an e- mail they sent is attached for the Commission's review. Though they did not offer a conciusive recommendation, they did question why the structure could not be moved outside the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback in its current configuration or reduced in size to meet setback requirements. They also expressed the need to consider whether the size of the proposed development could disturb or alter the natural topography, vegetation, and drainage and impacts to the visual character of the river corridor. Lastly, they inquired about the amount of hard surface the proposed structure would put on the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecological function of the river bluff system and increase runoff that can tead to slope instability, erosion, and sedimentation. Ms. Stromberg stated staff heard from the neighbor at 173 Hartman Circle, who is directly north of the subject property. He is not in favor of the proposed variances. He is concerned about the placement of the proposed structure and the potential impacts it will have on his property. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends denial of all variance requests because of the following: • No practical dif�culties exist on site; • Potential impacts to Natural Resources, the Mississippi River, and Manomin Park/Rice Creek; • Impacts to views of the Mississippi River from neighboring properties and the public right-of- way; and • Other placement locations and structure size options exist on the property. Commissioner Jenkins asked what exactly is an ordinary high water level table? Mr. Hickok replied, ordinary high water mark is the level in which the DNR uses and, because the water fluctuates as it does, the ordinary high water mark is often used as the measurement point to gain distances for structures from the waterway. Chairperson Sielaff referred to the map showing the ordinary high water setback and the bluff setback, if the buildings were to meet that setback they would be in compliance? Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Commissioner Anderson asked, in Ms. Stromberg's response to Variance No. 5, she had referenced that if the garage were on the east side, that a non-conformity potentially could occur; but she does state that with a reduction in size of the structure and creative architecture, the use of walkway extension or a pergola, it would eliminate the need for this type of variance. He asked if staff would explain why it would work for that side possibly but not for the other side. Mr. Hickok showed a sketch which takes them back to the first of many discussions staff had with the petitioner regarding potential options for this site. Early on there were a couple of different ones. One they suggested was if the existing garage were to be used as a garage, and it has a dimension of 576 square feet then, if the petitioner were to construct a new garage of no more than 775 square feet, they could connect it thereby not having a freestanding structure in front of the home. This would minimize the number of variances they would need. This would take the structure back away from the ordinary high water mark. It would take the new structure back away from the 40-foot setback from the bluff line, and it would limit the number of necessary variances. It would also reduce the number of variances by virtue of not having a 1,900 square foot request before them but instead having the proper amount of �1 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 9 of 18 square feet allowed by code. There would be far (ess variances, far less impact, and would certainly help the sight lines of the adjacent northern property. Staff felt this was an important option to discuss. Mr. Hickok stated they also discussed the potential of putting a garage along that eastern side. That garage kind of creates a courtyard in front of the house. The petitioner talked about changing the existing garage to living area which then means that new garage could exist and really not be in front of the house, if it's to the house. It could be set so it met setbacks and would not further impose on the 40-foot bluff line, and this would have been a solution that really could be built. The petitioner did express concern about the sight lines of the property to the east and, astutely so, this does have more impact on the sight lines to the property to the east but does reduce the number of variances on this site. Essentially taking it away to just a building permit issue as opposed to reyuiring variances at all. Commissioner Anderson stated ultimately if the existing garage were to be converted to living space that would become the front of the house. Whatever point is closest to the street. Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. Chairperson Sielaff stated this is part of the Mississippi critical area. He asked whether these requirements are adopted by the Code from that designation? That is a federal designation is it not? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, it is and the City adopts those regulations and puts those into our Code as an overlay district. Mr. Hickok stated also in the City's Comprehensive Plan it is committed to protecting those regulations and, as mentioned, this is consistent along the entire river corridor from here to the Gulf of Mexico. Carry Lyons, Architect, stated he is the architect working with Mr. Dahl. He assumed the Commission had a chance to review the architectural plans and elevations. The City is very much about maintaining the residential integrity and character, and that is exactly what Dr. Dahl is intending to do. He has tried to incorporate into the design of this facility all the same scale and proportion that exists in the existing facility. With the use of a number of defending planes it would mitigate the impact visually from Hartman Circle. Using all the same materials and trying to mitigate the effect of the overhead doors to the extent they may even be viewed as typical residential doors. The proportion and the scale are going to be in keeping in character with the existing structure and developing that same feel. Dr. Dahl is proposing extensive planting between the border between his property and Hartman Circle. There is quite a distinction made in the ordinance between living space and garage space. In most cases that is pretty obvious. In this case this garage will be fully outfitted as though it were living space with finished interior surface, vaulted ceilings, heated, air conditioned. The distinction between the two he would submit is very slight between living space/garage space. He appreciates it is the Commission's responsibility to safeguard the community against agricultural buildings, metal buildings, corrugated metal, etc. As they can see that is not anywhere near Mr. Dahl's intent. Mr. Lyons stated the property is already 46,000 square feet. The City would allow a 1,000 square foot garage on a 9,000 square foot property. Actually it allows it on a 7,500 square foot property prior to 59 or somewhere in that category. As far as maintaining or overcrowding the residential area, he cannot see that would be directly applicable. He would like to suggest it be reviewed on its merits of circulation, architectural integrity, and connectiveness with Mr. Dahl's property rather than the somewhat arbitrary E� Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 10 of 18 issue of it does not meet this specifc requirement as stated in the ordinance that the Commission has been empowered to make judgments about, make appeals about, to maintain the residential character. Mr. Lyons stated he also appreciates that the Commission may be approached after the fact and be asked, how could you possibly allow five variances on a project like that? He would say it was practical. The property is unusual. It is located in an unusual place. It should not be held to the standards of the lowest common denominator of the community. Practical difficulties — that is of course something under "hardship." These are terms that have to be put in there because you do not want people just doing what they want. Does this really appear it is contrary to the intent of a residential community development? It is bigger than usual. It will house these magnificent vehicles. Tt will actually have windows on the end so people can actually enjoy viewing these vehicles. He would submit that these are museum-quality vehicles and, if indeed the Dr. set up a museum and allowed it for public viewing, it would be well received by the community rather than shunned stating what an eyesare, how could they possibly allow a 1,900 square foot monstrosity in our neighborhood? He does not work to present something he does not believe in. Mr. Lyons stated it is true there were various options to look at on th+s site for locat+ng the garage. In his opinion they did not work nearly as well, in terms of character, circulations, scale, and appropriateness. One of the largest complaints, if you were to locate to the east as was suggested, that would eliminate or severely impede the neighbor to the east of any view of the Mississippi River. He also appreciates there could be ways to reorganize the drive, reorganize the entire front yard. They explored those options, and none of them made visual and as complete comprehensive sense as just locating along the western edge, wrapping it as it does, to fulfill and complement the existing home. Mr. Lyons stated a number of the variances associated with the request have to do with front yard setbacks. Again, the property is unique just like the remainder of the river front property. What is the front yard? Is really the approach from Hartman the front yard in this case? He submits the river is really the front yard and that is pretty evident the way people use the riverside of their homes. How it is advertised in real estate brochures. Is the variance encroaching the front yard? Yes, it is encroaching the front yard if the principal yard is only the consideration. However, if indeed the garage and the home are really one expression, not just a separate agri building, is it really an encroachment then? The suggestion staff made was to build onto the east side of the house and that is perfectly acceptable because it meets those requirements of sustaining the 100 feet and the 40 feet, but it does not work with the architecture or the circulation of the property. They are trying desperately to fit with the architecture but not be slavish to this somewhat arbitrary setbacks. Mr. Lyons stated he understands it is heinous to refer to these as somewhat arbitrary setbacks and requirements, but the fact of the matter is those setbacks and requirements have been infringed upon numerous times up and down the riverfront. Why does this become the time when it becomes a real issue? If it is construed so the architecture is pleasant enough to be not necessarily a garage, then indeed there is no setback infringement on the front yard at all. Mr. Lyons referred to the case of the Frank Loyd Wright house in Pennsylvania which went completely against Mr. Wright's usual concern for the natural environment and built the home on the falls rather than down in the lower area and viewing the falls. Mr. Wright realized the opportunity there. He brings this up as a littie bit of interest to know that this particular facility, not by Mr. Lyons' measure, is considered to be the most recognized piece of architecture in the world and, if not in the world, then certainly the United States. It is right on the bluff, hanging over the waterfall. 183 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Jenkins stated what Mr. Lyons is proposing is absolutely beautiful. Mr. Lyons stated Dr. Dahl has committed to anything the City reyuests in terms of materials or presentation of the architecture he is more than amenable to that; but he is certainly desirous of that location. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Lyons if he had explored the process of pushing the entire structure towards the street to at least eliminate some of the variance requirements? Mr. Lyons replied, they did a number of times and the interest of making the connection to the non- conforming, and he does not remember the exact rules and regulations; but he believed it was stressed they wanted to make a connection. He does know it tends to flow better with the architecture of the house and the garage if their proximity is about what is being proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated in looking at the survey, is he reading it correctly that essentially that it is encroaching into the setback that is furthest up in the yard by 29 feet? On the south side it looks like it is 22.7? � Ms. Stromberg replied, 29 ft. from the bluff setback and 22 ft. from the ordinary high water level setback. Robert Christenson, Business Manager and Consultant for Dr. Dahl, stated Dr. Dahl has been his client for five and one-half years. His family has been in Fridley for 100 years, he has been on City commissions, he managed the Chamber of Commerce, has been President of the Historical Society for seven or eight years, and has owned businesses in Fridley. He agreed to look at this situation for Dr. Dahl and has had a number of ineetings with Scott Hickok and Stacy Stromberg about this. He looks at Fridley as one of the unique cities in Anoka County. Up until about two years ago from the 1950's it had the largest tax valuation in Anoka County. His father served on the Beautification Commission, and they really want to keep this City as a leader in the county and that means both by beautification but also in protecting habitat and environmental issues. Mr. Christenson stated when he heard about this and what Dr. Dahl explained the project to him, he made a trip over to the DNR. The Commission has a letter in their packet that was submitted by Kate Drewry. Mr. Christenson went and met with her and asked her about this. He asked how dces the DNR look at these types of situations and gave her the specifcations as the Community Development did. She said she cannot give him an opinion on a specific case. Mr. Christenson asked what has been the history of this with other properties? She said the DNR only actively becomes involved in enforcing its regulations when it is a very egregious offense and where there has been people taking action without getting prior approval to do what they are doing. Mr. Christenson also asked Ms. Drewry how many cases have they actually taken action on in the past few years, and she replied there has only been two. Mr. Christenson told her that is quite extraordinary, and she said you have to look at it this way, they write very strong environmental regulations but have to be arbitrary when they write them because every case is going to be different and they go to the conservative side. That leaves room for local municipalities to look at the situation and make their determination, and they rarely ever override a local decision. ;• Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 12 of 18 Mr. Christenson statec! for example, one of the concerns is habitat. The only things right now on the river are some eagles that actually roost outside Dr. Dahl's deck in the trees that fly over the Mississippi River. He showed photos of Dr. Dahl's property. There is a lot of foliage and because of what the DNR states they would not really be concerned with erosion is the case of Dr. Dahl's property. In addition, regarding the 100-foot flood setback, the bluff is about 27 feet above the river. That takes a huge flood and you are not going to see a 27-foot rise in the river. There is no way this property is ever going to flood. Finally, the shed is going to be removed when the garage is put in. The garage is going to be further back from where the shed is. Therefore, Dr. Dahl will be coming into greater conformity, not less. The DNR is not going to be objecting to this. Mr. C6ristenson stated one of the other reasons the DNR just does not get involved in this is every time there is an exception made to the DNR regulations, they have to refer it to the Attorney General whose legal staff then gets involved and, regardless if they win or lose, it goes against their budget so they are very selective in what properties they are going to create concern about. However, the code states to generally protect and preserve the Mississippi River which is listed, harmony with purpose and intent ordinance to protect and preserve; this project has no affect at all on the Mississippi River. Actually in front of Dr. Dahl's property, along that bluff, he built a beautiful boulder barrier between the river and the bank so there would be no erosion. You can see it from the river. Provide and mitigate irreversible damages to natural resources. There are no damages. The trees are still going to stay there and the bluff will still be there. Preserve and enhance natural aesthetic cultural and historical value. There is no affect. Protect and preserve biological ecological functions. No affect. This garage will have no affect on the Mississippi River. In addition it is not going to have any affect on any of the neighbors' view of the Mississippi River because this is 27-feet above the river. Mr. Christenson showed a photo of Dr. Dahl's front yard taken from Hartman Circle. You cannot see the river from there. It is down 27 feet below that line. There are no homes except the home from the north and they have a view. Dr. Dahl building that garage is not going to affect their view one iota because between the garage and his property is a tree line. It will have an affect on the property to the east if the garage was moved over to the east. As he was reading in the document the Commission also has under the variance, "the walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-way shall be prohibited." If they did put it on the east side, it would be prohibited anyways although the City said there would be another option. Mr. Christenson stated regarding the variance to increase the size of the structure from 1,000 to 1,900 square feet, this in plain English says, City Code requires that the first accessory structure not exceed 100 percent of the first floor area of the dwelling or a maximum of 1,000 square feet. It does not say "and" a maximum of 1,000 square feet. It does not says "whichever is less" it says, "or." There is an offer and receiver, and they are offering this as what the options are. You can either be the first floor square footage or not to exceed 1,000 square feet maacimum. The recipient's choice is whether it is a 1,000 square feet or keeping it to a maximum of 1,000 square feet or 100 percent; and 100 percent just happens to be more than 1,000 square feet. They do not need a variance for that because it is in Code. He has talked to a few attorneys about this who say it is plain English, it is either one or the other. It is not going to exceed 100 percent of the first floor area because once that existing garage is converted into an arFs and crafts room, the size of the first floor dwelling is 2,560 square feet; and the garage is only 1,900 square feet so it is well within that and it does not overwhelm the house either. This house is already 1,900 square feet right now. �5 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 13 of 18 Mr. Christenson stated regarding whether this property is used in a reasonable manner, yes, because it really does not need a variance from this part of the Code. Mr. Christenson stated that the code says to increase the size of all structures from 1,400 to 1,900 square feet. That one is very interesting also because it says the combined floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. He asked, however, where is that located? Accessory Uses: (1) a private garage is the frst accessory building. Under one accessory building you are limited to 100 percent of the first floor area or 1,000 square feet if it is less than 1,000. Then, (2) a second garage over 120 square feet provided the following criteria are met: the combined total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feat. That does not apply to garage #1, that applies to garage #2 because they are looking at multiple buildings; and it is a very different situation if you have two buildings that are accessory buildings on the property. They want to limit the size of those and keep them consistent with the typical size of the property. This property is an acre in size. For the second garage or accessory building ther.e is no second garage or accessory building. There is only one because the one building, the garage he has now, is going to be an arts and crafts room. There is no second one. That code section does not apply. Mr. Christenson stated it was also mentioned about building that garage on the east side and Carry Lyons showed the view where you have about 12,000 square feet to build on. But that 12,000 square feet is on a sloped hill going down. A lot of that is not even buildable area. It would be weird putting a structure into that part of the yard. As it is the drawing he had would totally wipe out the front yard. That would be an eyesore to the property. Mr. Christenson stated he has looked at a lot of the properties along Rice Creek. The only time there is water in Rice Creek is when the Mississippi goes up during the spring floods, and the water runs from the Mississippi to Rice Creek. The other thing is there have been other variances that have been granted along Rice Creek where that tributary is, and he showed a building that sits right on the lip of Rice Creek which was allowed to be built. There was also a garage on this same properly that was built and that needed a variance. He does not know if one was granted or if they were just given a building permit. But with Dr. Dahl's property it was required he had a topographic survey, but he knows this property on the tributary did not have to have one. There is also a home further down on the Mississippi River, and it had an addition just put on which is 100 feet of the river. Another one had an addition put on and is right there on Rice Creek. This house comes right up to Rice Creek. Mr. Christenson stated, therefore, this has been done before on Hartman Circle and it may be done again. To look at what Dr. Dahl is trying to do, he is trying to do it within the Code. Mr. Christenson believes the Code allows Dr. Dahl to build 1,900 syuare feet. It takes all of these cars out of a driveway that holds 20 cars, and that becomes more of an eyesore than what that garage is going to be. It actually makes that property more attractive. It adds to the value of the home and it will increase the taxes that flow to Fridley because of that. Also, as far as the DNR is concerned, it is not an egregious violation of the Statute because it is within the intent and there is no jeopardy of neither erosion nor to the habitat because of all the trees and everything alongside the house so that does not apply either. There is no reason that they can see not to grant a variance in this situation. John Simmelink, 165 Hartman Circle, he is one of seven homes on the river on Hartman Circle. He has 90 feet of river frontage. He pointed out the property referenced earlier is not on Rice Creek. It is on the backwater of Rice Creek. He wanted to make that clear. He is opposed to the variances for a number of reasons. He has great concern for his neighbors and staff presented his disagreements. He particularly I$6 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 14 of 18 has concern for his neighbor at 173 Hartman Circle, the neighbor to the north. This would be so close to the lot line that it would be intrusive blocking views. The pictures shown by the petitioner's side are in the summertime of the river. Most of the time the leaves are off the trees, and they have beautiful views of the river all along the circle. The petitioner's home is one of the largest in the neighborhood, and all the other homes on the river, with one exception are quite small. This would just be so overwhelming that it would ruin that streetscape staff talked about and the residential quality he is concerned about. Mr. Simmelink stated, secondly, he moved to his home in 2005. He has access to the river and is down there every morning without question as he knows his neighbor is. There is just a tremendous amount of wildlife, too numerous to mention: deer, beaver, fox, they had a wolf out on the river this past winter. The eagles, osprey, etc. are down there all the time. Building something so close to the river bluff, even thought it is 27 feet above the river, is going to encroach on that habitat for those animals. He is a Friend of the Mississippi, he adheres to their principles, trying to maintain not only the habitat but also the integrity of the bank of the river. Even though this structure would be 27 feet above the river as previously mentioned the varying level of the river and trying to explain the setback, that is almost constant. Now with the controversy over the dam they do not know what that is going to be like. He thinks this structure Dr. Dahl is petitioning for would really affect that habitat. Mr. Simmelink stated this sets a dangerous precedent. If the Commission allowed this, talking about other buildings that do not meet Code, what would stop one of his neighbors or himself from building something that would just be unsightly, ruin the streetscape, residential quality, potentially opening the floodgates and requesting variances for all kinds of things. He respectfully requested the Commission deny this variance. Dale Nawrocki, 173 Hartman Circle, stated he lives just to the north of Dr. Dahl. That is the most misleading presentation he has ever seen. Almost everything the petitioner's representatives showed the Commission had something that was not right in it. He wished the Commission could be there to see this. Dr. Dahl bragged to him about how that new garage was going to come about five feet from Mr. Nawrocki's house. There is not a whole lot of room to put the garage in. The garage is about the size of another house in between their two houses. Dr. Dahl already throws a ton of garbage down the hill towards the river. There are old tires, Mr. Nawrocki pulled a battery out of there one time. Dr. Dahl has tried to get everybody else to sign something saying it's OK to build the garage but no one will sign. People are afraid to stand up to him because they feel they will get sued. Mr. Nawrocki does not want this, and he cannot believe this is happening. He did not meet Dr. Dahl the first five years he lived there, but when he did, he came out guns a blazing and it is harassment. When he sees him he is usually pretty difficult to deal with. Commissioner Jenkins stated his first question is about the 1,000 or 100 percent of the square feet of the house. Mr. Hickok replied, Robert Christenson, as he was doing his presentation referred to that section of the Code that talks about not to exceed 1,000 syuare feet or 100 percent of first floor living area of the home. What is important about this section of the Code is also reflective of the time when the State Building Code would not allow a structure over 1,000 square feet. To exceed 1,000 square feet of the garage is not only a violation of this ordinance, but of the Building Code at the time this language was drafted. It was not meant to be, take your pick, it was it cannot exceed the first floor living area of the home or the 1,000 square feet. The next section becomes more convoluted. When you factor in the Building Code did not allow provisions for anything over 1,000 square feet in a single residential garage. i�7 Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 15 of 18 Commission Anderson stated regardless of the size of the garage, it does meet the setback to the north, correct? Is it a 5-foot setback run between the two properties along the easement there? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is correct. Chairperson Sielaff stated the point was made this was an over acre lot. Since this is a large lot, having this structure on there, is it going to be any worse than any other smaller lot. How much of this property is made up of the bluff? Does that cut down on the lot you see? Is not a lot of this lot on the bluff? Mr. Hickok replied, that is a very good point. The relative impact is far greater than what is being suggested by it being over an acre lot and this is only "X" number of syuare feet. It really contradicts the architect's own statement about the buildable area on the {ot. The reality is this sma11 triangle and everything else becomes difficult to build on. You put that many square feet on an area that is difficult to put structure in because of the slopes and topography in there, it further drives the point this is not appropriate. It really does impact the land in a way that if they were talking about an acre on flat land they might look at it differently. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to speak to the statement in the hardship statement and also the presentation to other properties that have been remodeled or had construction to them within the last five years as stated? In his time on the Commission he does not recall any variances coming before them like that. Mr. Hickok stated relative to the statement about the acre of land and really even in the hardship statement, the petitioner stating that he has a large piece of land as if that is a hardship, staff did suggest early on that if they wanted to approach this as a text amendment and say, the ordinance is inept in that it is not covering consideration for people who have larger lots. A petitioner could come to the City and say, what about those people with larger lots, would you be willing to allow a bit larger garage on a property that has a larger dimension. Of course you are seeing a variance request tonight instead of a text amendment request. Mr. Hickok referred to the photo the Mr. Christenson showed of the first home off of East River Road, which is located at 191 Hartman Circle. It is important to note that the existence for that home and date it was built, put it into a pre-existing, non-conforming status, just like Dr. Dahl's by virtue of when they were built and what the Code was at that time. The owner of 191 Hartman Circle did come before the Commission in about 1996, and their variance was to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet to construct an attached garage. The home had no garage and had no place to put it. By current standards, needing a 25-foot front yard setback, they would not have needed a variance at all. Regarding another home referenced as being right on the bluff, again, it was built that way and recently an addition was built. It had a fire and in reviewing the non-conforming Statute in the State of Minnesota it states you can rebuild in the footprint of a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Originally what burned down was a hot tub room and what was built was a living room. Staff did go out and look at it and spent a lot of time out there. Mr. Christenson referred to the house with the addition. The room was an outdoor hot tub that had a fence around it. It was not a room. It did not have a roof, etc. The house that was allowed the garage, they also built a large shed right on the edge of the bank. They needed a garage and a shed? He does not think there was any variance given for that. If there was a variance given, why were they given a variance : :�� Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 16 of 18 for a garage and a shed. On a personal note he was known Dr. Dahl for five and one-half years; and he is one of the most kind, giving, caring people he has never met. He would not be Mr. Christenson's client if he was anything different. Mr. Nawrocki stated the picture that was shown was of a neighbor, not on the river; it is up the street, it is at 191 Hartman Circle. They had an old shed there and, when they remodeled the house, they put another shed in that same spot. Also, the hot tub room at the other example that was provided, did have a roof on it, it was enclosed. It just is not true that it was just a deck without a roof. It does not seem these guys can go about this in an honest way. Every example they have is misleading or they are not telling the Commission the truth. If this were to go up, Dr. Dahl would not stick by the rules and has said if he was not given permission he was going to build this garage anyways. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELA,FF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Jenkins stated what he is not comfortable with is has been covered pretty well by City staff is the size of this structure, and the environmental impact. It just seems there is a better way to do this. Commissioner Anderson stated ultimately a lot of what was presented tonight was driven around the aesthetics; this is going to be a pleasing structure. He has no doubt that is the case with the drawings and the sketches shown. It looks to be something that is well-integrated into the house. The one problem he falls back on is that, although there was a lot of testimony given surrounding how it is going to fit together and that it does not really encroach on the bluff, this is a good spot because the neighbor to the east will not be affected, or views will not be affected, ultimately there was very little conversation surrounding the practical difficulties. He was asking himself if he had this property, this seems like a good place to put the garage; but as a commissioner, unless they can prove there are practical difficulties he does not see having a garage where you want it to be and where it looks nice when there are other options available such as closer to the street, a smaller garage, other location as practical difficulties. Chairperson Sielaff stated this is a critical area and there are requirements in this area. The criteria is more stringent now that it is a critical area, and the Commission needs to follow what the requirements are now. It does not meet those criteria. He did not hear anything to address practical difficulties as a way that it should not follow the critical areas criteria. Also, he does think this large garage would impact the neighborhood. They cut a third of the property off because it is on a bluff. That garage is going to look big on that property. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance reducing the setback from the ordinary high water level from 100 feet to 78 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance reducing the bluff setback from the 40 feet to 11 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. m Appeals Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 Page 17 of 18 UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the size of a 1�` accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the size of all accessory structure on a property from 1,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Jenkins denying variance increasing the setback of an attached accessory structure located in front of a home from 5 feet to 64 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION denying Variance, VAR #11-02, by Wayne Dahl, DC, generally located at 177 Hartman Circle, in its entirety. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Ms. Stromberg stated the Sandee's site on Mississippi Street and Central Avenue has been cleared, and Trident Development is in the process of developing a 70-unit senior development on that site. They had their groundbreaking last week. Mr. Hickok stated Council and Parks and Recreation Commission have been evaluating Chapter 510 of the Tree Preservation ordinance in parks and public lands. One of the things important to note is recently there was an amendment to that section of Code and, after further analysis by staff, it became pretty clear that the requirements of 510 made it entirely onerous for removing trees on boulevards that would still be considered public property but to everyone's recognition because of damaging infrastructure, etc. As a result there is a repeal being considered by Council right now of this. Both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission went back and reviewed and concurred with the staff recommendation to repeal that section of Code and replace it with a policy about removal in parks and on public lands and involving the Forester with that decision-making process. The City isn't giving up protection or preservation of trees. However, it is being considered because of when there are situations where it is important to get the trees out, the process of going through the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council is not an efficient form of government and is certainly not the intent of the ordinance. The chapter was actually adopted back at the time of some urging by some citizens to have a golf course instead of the Springbrook Nature Center and if you were to remove more than three trees you had to go through this process. 1�0 VARIANCE APPLICATION "Hardship Statement" Wayne E. Dahl, DC,177 Hartman Circle, Fridley, MN 55432 August 5, 2011 The Variance Application requests a detailed narrative with a hardship statement as "statutorily defined:' The current Minnesota Statute on variances, Chapter 394.27, subdivision 7, was amended in the most recent legislative session to remove "hardship" as a requirement and replace it with "practical difficulties" as the new statutory definition. "Practical Difficulties" is statutorily defined as: "the property owner proposes to use the properLy in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." My plight' is I have a large home (1,900 sq, ft first floor) on a beautifull+ acre site �, , adjoining the Mississippi River and Manomin County Park overlooking the Rice Creek tributary. I pay significant properry taxes to occupy this beautiful site, but I am discouraged from obtaining the highest and best use of my property because of the setback from the river and from a rear bluff, neither which were created my myself as landowner. I am not requesting a variance on the size of the garage because the size of the garage is in compliance with the code. Paragraph (1) of Fridley Code 205.07 (B) (1) states: "A private garage is the first accessory building. lt shall not exceed 100� of the first floor area of the dwelling unit �r a maximum of I,000 square feet (emphasis mine). Therefore, a 1,900 square foot garage is allowed because my first floor square footage is 1,90Q square feet and will become 2,500 square feet once the current garage is converted into living space. Paragraph (2) of the same section on Accessory Uses also states: "A second garage or accessory building of over 120 square feet provided the following criteria are me� (a) The combined floor area of all accessory buildings shall not excel 1,400 square fee�" Being I will have only one accessory building, I therefore do not fall under the requirements of Paragraph (2). � As to the river setback requirement of 100 feet, I have spoken with Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist Anoka County, Department of Natural Resources. She informed me that the DNR would not object to compromising a river setback requirement if the local municipality approved the variance and it was not an egregious noncomformance like damaging wildlife habitat Kate Drewry can be reached at 651-259-5753. The bluff on the river where the garage will be built is about 30 feet high, so requiring 100 foot setback is does not further protect the river and thus this is not an egregious noncompliance. When I appealed to the City Council to approve my constructing a storage shed on this bluff a few years ago, I provided photos of over 75 properties on the river that had structures at less than 100 feet setback and the City waived this setback for my shed. 91 1 As to the bluff setback requirement of 50 feet, the location of the new garage is further away from the river than the existing pre-approved shed that will be removed when the garage is constructed, thus bringing the property more into compiiance with the code. There are other homes on Hartman Circle that have had additions over the past 5 years that border the Mississippi River or the Rice Creek tributary that did not require a full survey as my property has, and whose additions were allowed to be in conflict with setback requirements without any objection by the City. I can provide addresses if desired. The ideal location for the garage is on the west side of the house connected to the current driveway. Although there is space to build my garage on the east side of my residence, it cannot be done without blocking the view of the Mississippi River now enjoyed by my neighbor to the east It would also require tearing up my new 175 foot concrete driveway and building a garage requiring a drive up ramp and a basement so that the garage is at the same level as the first floor of the house. This does not beautify the neighborhood in anybody's estimation because the garage on the east side would be not be as architecturally pleasing. In addition, it would negatively affect overall property value as it would reduce the value of the property to the east having lost its view of the river and reduce the value of my property with an out-of-place looking garage. The size of the new garage proposed is totally compatible with my extra large 46,000 square foot lot I have spent the past 31 years continually improving my property: 1. I have built an all stone wall along the Mississippi River to prevent erosion of the river bank; 2. I�have enhanced the landscape with flowers, plants and trees; 3. I have constructed two 30 foot high bird roosts for eagles and other birds flying the Mississippi River that benefits Manomin Park.; 4. I have added a 600 square foot patio on the east side of the home; 5. I have added a new deck on the south side of the home; 6. I have a new 175 foot concrete driveway where visitors can park without occupying space on the street in front of neighbors homes; and 7. I have done e�ensive remodeling ta the interior of the home adding a number of beams to reinforce the structure, refurbishing the interior etc. This is a unique opportunity to improve the neighborhood in a very attractive fashion The Hartman Circle neighborhood which has been my home for 31 years is one of Fridley's great treasures, with its location on the Mississippi River, Rice Creek and adjacent to Manomin Park. It is my plan to continue to improve and maintain my property to the benefit of all of my neighbors so that this treasure is preserved for many years in the future. 92 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION "Proposed Use of Building" Wayne E. Dahl, DC,177 Hartman Circle, Fridley, MN 55432 August 5, 2011 The proposed use of the building is to function as a garage for my cars, Iawn tractor and tools as well as my collection of antique automobiles that are currently parked in my driveway. South of my property is a Rice Creek tributary that has been a muddy creek bed for over 10 years due to debris from Locke Lake dam improvements clogging the inlet to this tributary. My entire south boundary is Manomin Park. Its west boundary is 20Q feet of frontage on the Mississippi River. The entire property is over one acre. My home's first floor is 1,900+ square feet The plan is to convert my existing 600 sq. ft garage into living space and add a new garage of 1,900 square Feet on the west side. By converting the existing garage to living space for an arts and crafts room, the total living space of the home will become approximately 2,500 square feet on the first floor. The new garage will be of an architecturally pleasing design. It will have cedar shakes siding, wood trim and windows to match the existing residence. It will have a commercial grade built-up composite roof. The garage doors are designed to be reminiscent of carriage house garage doors to minimize the impact typical garage doors have on a residence. The new arts and crafts room will be built to code using similar materials used in the existing residence with the same exterior of cedar shakes. This proposed addition to my home will be a further improvement to the housing stock of the neighborhood and will also generate additional tax revenues for the City. 93 Stromberg, Stacy From: Drewry, Kate (DNR) [kafe.drewry cLDstate.mn.usj Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:02 PM To: Stromberg, Stacy Subject: RE: 177 Hartman Circle Stacy: Thank you for the information on the proposed variance at 177 Hartman Circle. The request involves the construction of a detached garage within 40' of the top of the Mississippi River bluff and within the 100' setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of the River . The parcel and proposed development are within the City's Shoreland Overlay District and also within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District, both of which prohibit development on or within 40' of bluff and/or within 100 feet of the OHW. DNR offers the following general criteria and guidance to ensure the protection of bluffs and shorelands as provided by the state MRCCA and Shoreland programs and City Ordinances: 1. Do proctical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the properiy? Were the unique circumstances not created by persons presently having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone? Consideration should be given as to whether the development as proposed is reasonable given the site limitations, whether the variance provides minimal relief or substantial deviation from the bluff and OHW regulations, and whether other feasible alternatives exist that would reduce the degree of noncompliance. For example, why couldn't the proposed garage be moved outside of the setbacks in its current con�guration or reconfigured and/or reduced in size to meet the setbacks? 2. Does the property owner or authorized applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan? Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual properly owner against the purpose of the local zoning regulation for protecting the public interest. Minnesota Statutes, section 116G and Executive Order 79-19, which designated the MRCCA, require local governments to adopt MRCCA plans and ordinances in order to: (1) protect and preserve the Mississippi River and adjacent lands that the legislature finds to be unique and valuable state and regional resources for the bene�t of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state, region, and nation; (2) prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to these state, regional, and natural resources; (3) preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River and adjacent lands for public use and benefit; (4j protect and preserve the Mississippi River as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and (5) protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi River corridor. The City must evaluate the proposed variance in light of these policies and regulations and determine whether it is reasonable and appropriate to locate the proposed structure this far into the setbacks, and whether the variance will put the property to use in a manner suitable to the site conditions. 94 � 3. Will the proposed variance alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity? If granted, will the proposed variance will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties? Consider the size of the proposed development; the extent of disturbance and alterations to natural topography, vegetation, and drainage; and how it relates to the visual character and hydrology of the river corridor. The proposed structure will add considerable impervious coverage to the site, which may detract from the natural character and ecological function of the river bluff system and increase runoff that can lead to slope instability, erosion and sedimentation. The visual impact of the structure as viewed from the river should also be evaluated. All of the above criteria should be satisfied to grant the variance, and formal finding in support of the variance should be adopted. If findings support granting the variance, then the City should consider the adverse impacts on the river and �iver bluff system and place appropriate conditions on the approval to mitigate them. As provided by state law, conditions must be directly related and roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. We are aware of a number of communities that have implemented mitigation scoring systems and would be happy to share them with you. 7hank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Kate Drewry North Metro Area Hydrologist DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5753 Fax: 651-772-7977 kate.drewrv�astate.mn.us www.mndnr.gov From: Stromberg, Stacy [mailto:StrombergSCa�ci.fridle�mn.usl Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 20114:31 PM To: Drewry, Kate (DNR) Subject: 177 Hartman Crcle Hi Kate, The City has received a variance request from Dr. Wayne Dahl at 177 Hartman Circle NE in Fridley to construct a new attached garage. Several variances, including variances to the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water line and 40 ft. bluff line are being requested in order to construct this structure. I've attached the certificate of survey for the property as well as Dr. Dahl's narrative. You will also be receiving a public hearing notice within the next few days. I would appreciate a response from you by September 28tn. 7hank you, Stacy Stromderg Planner City of Fridley 95 2 _ CIIYOF FR[DLEY FRIDLEY MUIVICIPAL CENTER • 6431 iJNIVERSTTY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 October 25, 2011 (�63) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 • TTD/TTY (763) 572-3534 Wayne Dahl, DC. 177 Hartman Circle Fridley MN 55432 NOTIFICATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME OF AGENCY ACTION RE: Fridley Variance Request, VAR #11-02 Dear Mr. Dahl: At the October 24, 2011 City Council meeting, you requested that the City continue your above- referenced variance application to permit you time to evaluate your options. State Statute requires the City to act.upon zoning requests within 60 days of receipt of such requests. In response to your request, at the October 24, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council moved to extend the 60 day agency action deadline an additional 60 days. At the City Council meeting, you agreed to submit those options to City staff no later than November 21, 2011. Your variance request will go before the City Council on December 12, 2011. Accordingly, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §15.99, Subd.3(fl, the City hereby extends the time for agency action an additional 60 days on your above-captioned variance request until December 30, 2011 to permit you time to evaluate your options and provide those options to the City staff . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3595. i, Sta y Stro erg Planner Jones, Julie From: Burns, Bill Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 6:25 PM To: 'Darcy M. Erickson' Cc: Jones, Julie; Hickok, Scott Subject: FW: Darcy, Julie told me you wanted this. : From: Burns, Bill Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:50 AM To: Abbott, Don Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Thanks, Don. ( appreciate the explanation. From: Abbott, Don Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:53 AM To: Burns, Bill Subject: RE: It was both accidental and intentional. He saw the lower level doars were uniocked and wanted to secure them so he ran his card through the lock down reader by the lower levei doors not realizing it would lock the upstairs doors as well. We've given him the info that both lockdown readers lock all doors and that they need to be open for and during public meetings. Ray is a long-term and conscientious employee with us and we're chalking this up to a weN- intentianed "000ps" that shouldn't be repeated. �. From: Burns, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:58 PM To: Abbott, Don Subject: RE: Thanks, Don From: Abbott, Don Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:29 PM To: Burns, Bill Subject: RE: Don't know — I would assume accidentally but we can ask. From: Burns, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:09 PM To: Abbott, Don Subject: FVU: Don, this caused the public to be locked out of the Council meeting last night. Did he do this intentionally or accidentally? : From: Benson, Jeannie Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:09 AM To: Burns, Bill Subject: Bill, Ray Maki liit ttie lock down reader at 8:45 pm last niglit. Tliat is wliy t�ie door were locked. Jeannie Jeamiie Beuson City of Fridley Engineering Admiiiistrative Assistaut Facility Maintenai�ce Operations 763-572-3552 2 Wayne E. Dahl, DC 177 Hartman Circle, Fridley, MN 55432 612-790-0911 November 17, 2011 Mr. Scott Hickok Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Hickok, I have reviewed your recommendation to move the location of my new garage to the east side of my residence if I wished to avoid making any requests for variances. To that end, my architect, Carey Lyon, prepared some preliminary drawings that detail the location of the new garage and expansion to the living area of my residence in full compliance with the zoning code. My representative, Robert Christenson, presented these plans to you and Stacy Sfiromberg on November 16 and was given verbal approval for Carey Lyon to proceed in =leveloping #he final construction plans #or submission to tha Building Inspection Department wi#hout the necessi#y ta request any variances. Therefare, 1 am witfidrawing my reque�t for variances which you deemed necessar�r for me to constru�t the gara�e fln the west side of my residence. Thank you #or �our assistance in facilitating these improvemen#s to my home which in turn enh�nce the Ha�rtman Circte neighborhood. Yours truly, � � ° ��ti��i7/, �. Wayne E. Dahl, DC Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3599 FAX: (763) 571-1287 E-mail: jonesj@ci.fridley.mn.us I To: Darcy Erickson From: Julie Jones, Planning Manager Fax: 651.450.7384 Phone: Re: Dahl's Variance Withdrawl ❑ Urgent x For Review � Comments: Per your request. Pages: 2, including this page Date: November21, 2011 CC: ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Repty ❑ Please Recycte —I m x AI #0 ,___________„/%11551 s5 i PP 1 -----------) rio +. .,. ......................,ff cn - ''. ."\o Z CO ilk NW \ i.-----'--- .............. • -o ^~ '`�-•- co\P ..1 14 1:::=1 \l,t4 cd 111. ,o ........ /0/..... �..ca.1........ 01• ••••'1.'4... s? z�n isk et I."--.*\ttt .....,.... .\ e\...1/11 i \ I - -lv ..r.t* too. Os at 4 • • Af 1,4 ")) 4 \ S \\5‘.0. E7t. 1% - C 0 ) d I ...lt \ ,ori.Voio"t °' lit a f_l_ `'114% ,,,...,.. \ \ z ie pi (11 e lc S • 1; ,7 g., ... t ,..,%,..in........,.....,,.,,i7 -, ,` a 1 ,,,,,,,:: ..d 0 - •'. �6 i #; 1. T �1Ch (A .pWN *" =1 ,. ..: E � � � � 4 r© tip © 00 A, _...s," •? � " r-i..., © No ..d. et ow. / 4 -., _.. M �� - 'mg 1.i imit 11 taw r i = war -irt ', 141 tillfl: 1d Y , ' V.:V' 4 •. V.,t.'17: til fA ono. s ak .: Q �, Y Q ; ?:, , Cis ©. � ` . I = PA It Ca DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: C. Lyons Site Plan &Survey 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl Dahl Residence Architect Q RE ISSUE 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 V Te1: 612-790-0911 F 0 ,. m 1 INF m mr...... . ....... ....... ........ •••+.. 1 I IV = ........(37-...... .3/4% ..• IN i (-„- ri It 1 P1 0,01 tto Z ; g A s liii t i 1 1 .../ $ f------) L i ,, .... • .. , . t11 .." ................., ,,.._. rt � , V - � r � pt _ � R • o 1 ,ik4 r"...151 Co Di 0 � ft hir C1 01 / v ciii.) N A11 01 \icot ie.__ ... ....... — ...-- ...... 7' o l . . 1 r / 1 / -A 43Z/ ,I -,70- , 00 "A\Ito ik%,„„„.. L ,‘TipS 0,14 DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: C. Lyons 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wane Dahl Lower Level RE ISSUE y Dahl Residence Architect N 177 Hartman Circle "''� Plan 08.09.08 Fridley, MN Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 CO Tel: 612-790-0911 3 m _II 2 1 r fill m MI < ■r •v Er .. r--; r....... ....... ..... .....r Y .. . 1111 1 a ain • w C21• t. • `. . • • TI aA _ 1_ . - 1 • • 1 • ... „lig .. .. . _a . 4---\ 11 • • - . ill* (11 • ,• , , 1 g4 • ' _ • , . lit:!Ai 2 i ir • • I., . • . 1: 'i. Illin0 174111 11* 1 . Baa ' , 71 t 1 C re e III III Oilll •• • (1) • leill le di • • A) . a 0 .a 7:-...4)k o C a -,1 to . % . 111 I ._ I tir..„) st 1 rei% .......„.. et ,O ....„.z_ • . ir /1"-----.‘- _ % 01 \..............., • , 0 / . II • w DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: C. Lyons CD 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl C Main Level REISSUE 177 Hartman Circle Dahl Residence Architect '% Plan 08.09.08 Fridley, MN Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 V I Tel: 612-790-0911 t . C No , nu m 1•1r m m ala fa L...........r---: _ ____ , . V ik opt r t r t(1 0 /` �' cS - I lit`^�x••.o"'" ..."Ir==.• IN Tii. ... L A gill At h. .......„.......... ; .. T~ ilii,,A., II 1/ n ...."-�.. t7 ,+ I 4/. I 1164Th ell 1 i , e. cn 6 i 8 �, ii 14 14 I,0 II is .6 -rt II _-. - o- t' 55 10 . tit .7--- ....... ›, _ ,,,, 3 4,, 1s 41 ta) DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT Upper Level 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl PROJECT: C. Lyons RE ISSUE Dahl Residence Architect .45 .4 „ Plan 08.09.08 177 Hartman Circle V Fridley, MN Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 Tel: 612-790-0911 l • 74 0 0 mei 110 ilill (9 -4 -o O la el 74 g it'2,. p.. r... .•••••••• .... ....... asO•mP .........• . Alitepoimr, 1 nil r all . . _I • . , ______ , __............. iti owl iim ar— - i g ,c. MEI I I l i _ vq, is ip ry r 11 , 5,,,jI t r ~ ~ t IN I not' alTo n I w rs----- -)1 . I 9 rilikoi eQ , g r l>.okokl° g-11- I 2 i c -Ti .ki 0 L. +�I i ..", -7 mil Ii LI 417' * b 1) EV I D I I /I liik".4.... i i Ul cu DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: Roof Plan 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl C. Lyons RE-ISSUE Dahl Residence Architect ( f'� 08.09.08 177 Hartman Circle V �+ Fridley, MN Tel: 612-790-0911 Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 * ; M U i4 ra . MIL z• IMI .... IPIll �, - I , CD M 03 11111 = bcwz 1 O O S = 3 C 111 li ' ( ' ► U \ II . i Noi di I 14, __ 1 __ 4111.*-4 I 1 11 lii.'„Iiiii - iiiiiii 01,:i `..c , Et 1-111:. ....1 11123 7 .q ,.., A' . _ , __ __ , , _ w ,-; _ ,___ -- millIMI. - 4-K SI:Milli ___ : , • N I n n ? �,. IN w, T W ID i Y i _ Q • -- s Ci :k n u _ s Ig r .� , i .„ i - : — r _ r - )' ii t . _ SL tr ! . . , `w -� = i ! ______ .. _ t-- 10 �1i l0 _J i 9 r� __ l ••••••• ..-.. - l 1 al DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: East/ West 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl C. Lyons Dahl Residence Architect O Elevations RE-ISSUE 08.09.08 177 Hartman Circle .441 amil V Fridley, MN Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169 Tel: 612-790-0911 i % V ' - ♦� ry 4z _ 0 I I 7 i A I� LI:le:hit: Z :1 roiii id • ': Noe' t Vo-� Al 1 . Iii X N 0 1 Al 00 II 4 1 s 4.,,, 3 ...... 1 ...._ II , _........_ Z 1 I .it II 1Q p r L-I ..„ V00) DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT. North / South 2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl Dahl Residence C. Lyons Architect O Elevations RE-ISSUE ''' 08.09.08 Fridley, M177 Hartman Circle Addition & Remodeling 9 612-965-0169 Tel: 612-790-0911 mi. is t4 21 Q 0 m . N CD I • ' • AI . i • \if O i i I iv -0- 1 j. mili 1 4. 11 Id ? . 1 r. 4 Ila II • LI j f 1 ' . :11 I Wi.•,-.:. I .I .. fil.- :T I 1111 l'i ! 1L1 ....4 Li 1S uE 1" tx . r 1 . Li w ilq-ing ill Iii ggi liti '1 INE i k 1 ? ,— . . I z. tt( i ii , immimine: r- J , . . _ 11 b j fi L 4., 1h tt 1 [ /111/ :1 '-' 5 2.. . -C 1 i kt ... I. 11 1 -lovi F ..,. ... *,.t 1,01` _ D , i 1 . .... i 1 ... . ............. ti fiptil II i II h p q tiflioll , j - 4. _ . _ g 00 CD DESCRIPTION North / South PROJECT NO. ISSUE CLIENT PROJECT: O2011-04 11/15/2011 Wayne Dahl Dahl Residence C. Lyons Elevations RE-ISSUE 177 Hartman Circle Architect 00 08.09.08 Fridle MN Tel: 612-790-0911 Addition & Remodeling 612-965-0169