VAR 02-13r
FRIDLEY CITY COUN%..L MEETING OF OCTOBER 28,20x.- PAGE 12
UPON A VOICE VOTE, L VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Haukaas, Public )or ks Director, stated there was an inconsistency found in the City
Code last year when t e date for the winter parking ban was changed. It was changed in one
section of the Code t not in another section.
MOTION by ouncilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmembe Bolkcom.
UPON AOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS:
10. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-13, BY JIM KIEWEL TO INCREASE THE
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE, GENERALLY LOCATED
AT 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE (WARD 2) (TABLED AUGUST 26, 2002).
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated they received a request from Mr.
Kiewel to withdraw his application. With the help of an architect, Mr. Kiewel redesigned the
project and provided a written request to have the item removed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that since this has gone past the 60 days, if Mr. Kiewel came
back, would he have to request a new variance.
Mr. Hickok replied that he would.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Kiewel if he agreed.
Mr. Kiewel stated he did so and thanked Council for their time.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to remove Variance Request, VAR #02-13, from the
table. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to accept Mr. Kiewel's letter to withdraw Variance
Request, VAR #02-13. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUN%_1L MEETING OF OCTOBER 28.2ou2 PAGE 11
developer paid $12,145. The balance was $11,150.60, and it w s being split between the two
properties. He said the assessment was consistent with the Osessment period of 15 years at
6 1/2 percent. One of the property owners has already prepa'd.
Mr. Wolfe asked for clarification of the administration,/fees. The City chose to reduce the
rate to 6 1/2 percent and eliminate the 5 percent a nistration fee. He said Mr. Varichak
asked him to check on that.
Mayor Lund asked if it would change the number on the table.
Mr. Wolfe said that it would be the other fee.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe t close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOT G AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS Y.
8. CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2002 NUISANCE
ABATEMENT.
MOTION by Councilmember Bo com to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and
open the public hearing. Secon d by Councilmember Wolfe.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, L VOTING AYE, MAYOR ILUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UN MOUSLY.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Direct r, said that this was an assessment fdr those properties to which
the City had extended re ources for code -compliance issues. He indicated that there were
four properties to be as ssed, and the full amount of the assessment was $2,824.76. He
stated it was a one-year sessment at 6 1/2 percent.
MOTION by Co ilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Bo com.
UPON A VOIC VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR L' UND DECLARED THE
MOTION C ED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. CONSIDERA ION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 506 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY
CODE PERTAINING TO SNOW REMOVAL (VIOLATION' AND TOWING).
MOTION bj Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and
open the pµblic hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe.
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 289 2002
Date: October 23, 2002
To: William Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
Stephanie Hanson, Planner
Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-13, Jim. Kiewel
M-02-125
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, was originally seeking a variance to
increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to
1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additional 28' by 37' second accessory
building. At the August 26, 2002 City Council meeting, Mr. Kiewel requested the Council
not take action on his item until he had a chance to review alternative layouts.
Mr. Kiewel's new proposal is to construct an 1,110 sq. foot (30' X 37') expansion
connected to the existing garage by a stairway. Thus, the new request is to expand the
allowable square footage of the first accessory building from 1,000 square feet to 1,686
square feet. If granted, the variance would also allow the footprint of the garage to exceed
the square footage of the home's living area, by approximately 282 square feet. The
garage addition is still proposed to have a flat roof and pre -formed concrete walls. A site
plan of the new proposal is in your packet.
Mr. Kiewel submitted a letter on October 18, 2002 stating his desire to withdraw his
variance from Council's consideration. Due to the fact that the Council has already held
and continues to hold open the discussion on this item, Council is advised to close the
discussion and take action on this item. The 60 Day date has already been extended until
November 8th and further extensions are not possible. The petitioner has failed to provide
any plans that are significantly different from the proposal unanimously denied by the
Appeals Commission this past August.
APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR
21
#02-13. After reviewing the facts, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the
request due to a lack of hardship.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends the Council take action on this variance request and strongly
recommends denial of the variance request. The petitioner does not meet the statutory
definition of hardship and the proposed expansion has an industrial look that is not in
character with residential properties in Fridley. Staff recommends the petitioner obtain a
SUP to construct a detached garage, meeting the City's size requirements, and
architecturally finished to match the existing residence. Such a garage would not require a
variance.
STIPULATIONS
If the Council does approve the new request, staff would advise attaching the following
stipulations.
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
6. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto
adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed
necessary by City Staff.
7. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff
velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain
garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to
issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being
"finaled".
8. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
22
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Jim Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To increase the allowable square footage of
all accessory buildings form 1,400 square
feet to 1,612 square feet.
Existing Zoning:
Residential -1
Location:
1631 Rice Creek Road
Size:
27,550 sq. ft. .6 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family, R-1
E: City of New Brighton
S: Single Family, R-1
W: Single Family, R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07.0l.B.(1) requires that the total area of
all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square
feet.
Zoning History.
Lot platted in 1939.
Home built in 1953.
VAR #95-23 granted in 1996.
VAR #95-23 expires, as it wasn't built, 1997.
VAR #00-04 withdrawn prior to action.
Legal Description of Property:
The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190'
thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to an
easement over the S. 30' thereof for road
purposes.
Council Action:
August 26, 2002
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road.
Physical Characteristics:
Typical suburban residential landscaping, lot
slopes towards back.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek
Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400
square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28' X 37' detached
garage.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Additional storage is needed for vehicles &
boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to
prevent theft, or damage from weather or
vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite
storage costs & give a clean appearance to the
neighborhood. " Jim Kiewel
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance
request.
• No similar variances to allow the square
footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400
square feet have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of
hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners
previous request (attached garage expanded to
be 1,392 square feet)
VAR #02-13
REQUEST
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction
of an additional 28' X 37' detached garage.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property is located north of Rice Creek Road near the New Brighton border. The home is a 1,500
square foot walkout rambler with a 576 square foot (24'x24') attached twocar garage. The home was
built in 1953 and the attached garage was added in 1961. The petitioner has owned the property since
1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage addition to increase the size of
accessory structures to a total of 2,064 square feet. In 2000, the petitioner submitted a variance
application, which was withdrawn prior to formal action, to increase the size of accessory structures to
1,666 square feet.
PRIOR VARIANCE REQUESTS
The 1995 variance request, VAR #95-23, was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996
after a total of two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory building to
1,392 square feet.
The 24' by 24' attached garage was built as a two story garage, which made the actual square footage
of the original garage 1,152 square feet. The original request for Variance #95-23 was to place a 24'
X 38' addition attached to the existing garage and home. A variance was needed as this request would
not only exceed the square footage of the home, but would also exceed the 1,400 square foot limit for
all accessory buildings. This request increased the total square footage of accessory buildings to 2,064
square feet and was denied by the Appeals Commission at their September 12, 1995 meeting.
When the variance request went to the City Council on October 2, 1995, the petitioner reduced his
request to 1,776 square feet of total accessory buildings by reducing the size of the existing lower
garage unit to 288 square feet. This request was denied by the City Council.
The petitioner then asked the Council to reconsider his request on October 23, 1995. The petitioner
agreed to remove the garage door from the lower level and block the space in so that it was not
considered part of the accessory structure. This reduced the petitioner's request to 1,392 total square
feet of accessory structures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the necessity of any
changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On February 12, 1996 the City Council
determined that the ordinance did not need to be changed and at their February 26t`, 1996 meeting
granted approval of VAR #95-23 to allow the size of a first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet.
The garage was not constructed and the variance expired in 1997.
Due to the lapse of Variance #95-23, the petitioner applied for another variance on March 17, 2000.
The March 2000 request, Variance #00-04, was for a 30' X 33' (990 square foot) detached garage
addition. The total square footage of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square feet. Staff
recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the petitioner withdrew the request
prior to the Appeals Commission.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (current Request) & VAR #95-23 (past variance granted,
that lapsed)
Through out the application process, the petitioner has repeatedly inferred to staff that we should
recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem granting this variance
request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in scope and there is
no hardship warranting the granting of a variance.
The previous variance, which was granted but lapsed after one year when construction had not started,
was a variance to allow an attached first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet rather than the
Code required 1,000 square feet for first accessory buildings. The total request was 8 square feet less
than the maximum square footage of all accessory buildings allowed by cods. Both of the petitioners
previous attempts to get the total square footage of the accessory buildings over 1,400 square feet were
denied due to a lack of hardship. The request to increase the allowable square footage to 2,064 square
feet was denied by the Appeals Commission due to a lack of hardship. The revised request to increase
the allowable square footage to 1,776 square feet was then denied by the Council due to a lack of
hardship.
To point out the differences in even simpler terms, the first request was for a 34' X 24' (816 square
foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28' X 37' (1,036 square foot) detached
garage addition. With VAR #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392
square feet. With VAR #02-13, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is proposed to be
1,612 sq. ft.. The granted variance was 8 square feet under the total allowed by Code. The requested
variance is 212 square feet more than allowed by Code.
(View of proposed garage location from North) *Addition Location* (View of proposed garage location from West
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance request.
• No similar variances to allow the square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet
have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to be
1,392 square feet)
STIPULATION
Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if the
property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage.
7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in accordance with
building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first
obtaining an additional variance.
8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent
properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City Stasi
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be
slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping.
Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be
installed prior to building permit being "finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building
elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building pen -nit.
11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully obtained to
construct
oQ
S
6 S• F
pwel/i
1.09
James Kiewel
ELEVATION
To: Fridley City Council
From: Jim Kiewel
Re: Variance # 02-13
On August 14th 2002 at my appeals commission meeting, a number of issues were brought
�aat need to be clarified and resolved.
The definition of ( FLOOR AREA) as it appears in Fridley City Code # 205.07.01.B.(1).
This Code states: THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET.
Fact : No definition of ( FLOOR AREA ) can be found within the definition section of the
Fridley City Charter chapter 205.
It is this petitioners request that the State definition of ( FLOOR AREA ) be substituted until
® such definition may be established within the Fridley City Charter.
a State Uniform Building Code, Chapter 2. ( Definitions and Abbreviations ), reads as follows:
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF A
BUILDING OR PORTION THEROF, EXCLUSIVE OF VENT SHAFTS AND COURTS.
THE FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING, OR PORTION THEROF, NOT PROVIDED WITH
SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE THE USABLE AREA UNDER THE
HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR ABOVE.
! This is a finished internal dimension, not an external dimension.
• Minnesota State Statute # 16B.62 STATE BUILDING CODE; APPLICATION.
Subdivision 1. ( Municipal enforcement) states:
® THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPLIES STATEWIDE AND SUPERSEDES THE
BUILDING CODE OF ANY MUNICIPALITY. THE STATE BUILDING CODE DOES
NOT APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO STATE
INSPECTIONS REQUIRED OR RULEMAKING AUTHORIZED BY 103F.141, 216C.19,
subdivision 8, and 326.244. ALL MUNICIPALITIES SHALL ADOPT AND ENFORCE
THE STATE BUILDING CODE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
�2. During the August 14th appeals meeting, Paul Bolin stated: The proposed garage is going to
be 37 by 28 which is 1036 S/F and then we've got an additional dwelling area which is 17 by
37 and that will separate the two garages. Therefore making the new garage detached not
attached. If one wanted to consider the new proposed garage as being attached we would
need to also include the dwelling areas in between the 2 garages and then we'de be looking at
a variance raising the total square footage of an attached garage from 1,000 S.F. up to 2,241
S.F.
When asked by Appeals commission menber Brad Dunham, " how can it be considered a
detached garage if it is in fact attached?"
Pauls response was. " Because you can only have 1 first accessory structure which is the original
garage. If there was not dwelling area seperating the two then this would not be a second
accessory structure. That would be an expansion of the first garage.
This statement brings into question whether the proposed garage is attached or detached.
For your convenience I have provided the relevant city codes in their entirety as they pertain to
my proposal so the city council can make an informed decision based on facts and not
speculation.
1. Section 205.07.B. (1) THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET.
2. SECTION 205.07.(4a) A PRIVATE GARAGE IS THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING.
IT SHALL NOT EXCEED 100% OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF THE DWELLING
UNIT OR A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET.
3. SECTION 205.07.0 (1) USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN
R-! DISTRICTS.
(1) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OTHER THAN THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING,
OVER 240 SQUARE FEET.
FRIDLEY CITY CODE - 205.03. DEFINITIONS.
1. ACCCESSORY BUILDING OR USE.
A SUBORDINATE BUILDING 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 PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR USE.
30. GARAGE, PRIVATE.
AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL
BUILDING WHICH IS USED TO STORE MOTOR VEHICLES OR OTHER PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENT.
I was unable to find the meaning of attached or detached in either Fridley City or State Code.
I did however find the meaning of (DETACHED) in WEBSTERS COLLEGE DICTIONARY.
2
Websters defines ( DETACHED ) as: (1) Standing by itself. (2) Seperate or Unconnected.
This petitioners site plan clearly shows that the proposed garage is in fact, attached to the
primary building, and not detached.
Mr. Bolin stated: We've got an additional dwelling area which is 17 by 37 that will separate the
2 garages. Therefore making the new garage detached and not attached.
This is misleading in that it implies there are two separate garages when in fact this proposed
private garage which is, by code definition, ( The first accessory building ). See 205.07 (4a),
Which states: A PRIVATE GARAGE IS THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING. This private
garage is attached to and is a ( PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING). See 205.03
DEFINITIONS. This defines a ( PRIVATE GARAGE) as (AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR
ACCESSORY PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING).
As a conditon of my prior variance I was required to block in my lower garage in order to add
the new garage area. Simply by adding dwelling area to my home does not detach the garage
from my home. In fact, this proposed private garage is fully interconnected to my primary home
through stairs and doors.
During the August 14th Appeals meeting, Paul also stated : ( If one wanted to consider the new
proposed garage as attached we would need to also include the dwelling area in between the two
garages and then we'de be looking at a variance raising the total square footage of an attached
garage from 1,000 square feet to 2,241 square feet.
I did not authorize any arbitrary modifications to my proposal, or site plan, to include my
dwelling area as garage space. By what code or authority does planning staff do so.
There are also a number of stipulations which are unacceptable or need changes.
Stipulation 2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
Request change to 1 year from issuance of variance. May be unable to meet current de idline .114JUAA5
with spring construction schedule.
Stipulation 4. Home must be opened to city officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. dfa—
I do not understand this. Needs clarification.
3
Stipulation 9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious, the water runoff
velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area ( rain garden)
or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being " finaled ".
Stipulation 8 is more practical here. Why build something prior to construction when it could be
St
damaged? Do not understand " finaled".
Stipulation 10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the exhisting home and
garage. Buildinjg elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
/Uurnmnecssary. Flat roof with stucco walls to match building.
ulation I1. Variance shall become null and void unless a special usepermit is
ully obtained to construct proposed detached garage.
Request Change to : Petitioner shall obtain special use permit if required by Fridley City Code.
Proposed garage is not detached, but attached to the primary building.
Section 205.07.C.(1). Fridley City Code, specifically excludes the first accessory building, a
( PRIVATE GARAGE) from a special use requirement.
In conclusion : Several months ago my neighbor across the street found the window smashed
out of his car. I would much prefer to keep my vehicles inside to protect them. The fact is, my
hardship has not changed since my last variance was granted. I need the space to store my lawn
tractor, boat, motorcyle, trailor and vehicles. This proposed improvement to my home will
increase the value of my property and thereby benefit my neighbors as well.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim Kiewel
4
205.07.01.
205.07. R-1 ONE -FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT REGULATIONS R-1 DISTRICT
REGULATIONS
I. USES PEMITTED USES
PEP-MITTED
A. Principal Uses.
The following are principal uses in R-1 Districts:
(1) .One -family dwellings. .
(2)• -Single family attached development as per conditions
under Section 205,.11 of this Code.
B. Accessory Uses.
(1) The total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not
exceed 1,400 square feet.
(2) Any second accessory buildings in excess of 240 square
feet shall require a Special Use Permit.
(3) The maximum height for all accessory buildings shall not
exceed fourteen (14) feet above grade.
(4) The following are.accessory uses in R-1 Districts:
(a) A private garage is the first accessory building.
It shall not exceed 100% of the .first floor area of the
dwelling unit or a maximum cif._1,000 square feet.
' Y
(b) Privately owned.recreational facilities which are
for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the.
principal use and their guests.
t _
(c) Home occupations.
(d) The rental of guest rooms to not more than two .(2)
persons per dwelling unit.
(e) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the
principal structure.
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in R-1
Districts:
(1) Accessory buildings •other than the first accessory
building, over 240 square feet.
(2) Churches.
(a) Building and site requirements and performance
standards shall be equal to or greater .than those
outlined in the following CR -1 sections of the Code;
205.16.3, 205.16.4, 205:16.6 and 205.16.7.
tyy! UNItUHM dUILLANU VUUt
FIRE RESISTANCE or FIRE -RESISTIVE CONSTRUC-
TION is construction to resist the spread of fire, details of which
are specified in this code.
FIRE -RETARDANT -TREATED WOOD is -any wood prod-
uct impregnated with chemicals by a pressure process or other
means during manufacture, and which, when tested in accordance
with UBC Standard 8-1 for a period of 30 minutes, shall have a
flame spread of not over 25 and show no evidence of progressive
combustion. In addition, the flame front shall not progress more
than 101/2 feet (3200 mm) beyond the center line of the burner at
any time during the test. Materials that may be exposed to the
weather shall pass the accelerated weathering test and be identi-
fied as Exterior type, in accordance with UBC Standard 23-4.
Where material is not directly exposed to rainfall but exposed to
high humidity conditions, it shall be subjected to the hygroscopic
test and identified as Interior Type A in accordance with UBC
Standard 23-4.
All materials shall bear identification showing the fire perform-
ance rating thereof. Such identifications shall be issued by an ap-
proved agency having a service for inspection of materials at the
factory.
FLAMMABLE LIQUID. See the Fire Code.
FLOOR AREA is the area included within the surrounding ex-
terior walls of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of vent
shafts and courts. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof,
not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable
area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.
FM is Factory Mutual Engineering and Research, 1151 Boston -
Providence Turnpike, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062.
FOAM PLASTIC INSULATION is a plastic that is intention-
ally expanded by the use of a foaming agent to produce a
reduced -density plastic containing voids consisting of hollow
spheres or interconnected cells distributed throughout the plastic
for thermal insulating or acoustical purposes and that has a density
less than 20 pounds per cubic foot (320 kg/m3).
FOOTING is that portion of the foundation of a structure that
spreads and transmits loads directly to the soil or the piles.
FRONT OF LOT is the front boundary line of a lot bordering
on the street and, in the case of a corner lot, may be either frontage.
SECTION 208 — G
GARAGE is a building or portion thereof in which a motor ve-
hicle containing flammable or combustible liquids or gas in its
tank is stored, repaired or kept.
GARAGE, PRIVATE, is a building or a portion of a building,
not more than 1,000 square feet (93 m2) in area, in which only mo-
tor vehicles used by the tenants of the building or buildings on the
premises are stored or kept. (See Section 312.)
GARAGE, PUBLIC, is any garage other than a private garage.
GAS ROOM is a separately ventilated, fully enclosed room in
which only toxic and highly toxic compressed gases and associ-
ated equipment and supplies are stored or used.
GRADE (Adjacent Ground Elevation) is the lowest point of
elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk
within the area between the building and the property line or, when
the property line is more than 5 feet (1524 mm) from the building,
between the building and a line 5 feet (1524 mm) from the
building.
207
209
GRADE (Lumber) is the classification of lumber in regard to
strength and utility.
GUARDRAIL is a system of building components located
near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces for the purpose of
minimizing the possibility of an accidental fall from the walking
surface to the lower level.
GUEST is any person hiring or occupying a room for living or
sleeping purposes.
GUEST ROOM is any room or rooms used or intended to be
used bl a guest for sleeping purposes. Every 100 square feet
(9.3 m-) of superficial floor area in a dormitory shall be consid-
ered to be a guest room.
SECTION 209 — H
HABITABLE SPACE (ROOM) is space in a stricture for liv-
ing, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments,
closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not
considered habitable space.
HANDLING is the deliberate movement of material by any ,
means to a point of storage or use.
HANDRAIL is a railing provided for grasping with the hand
for support. See also "guardrail."
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTION MATERIAL (HPM) is a
solid, liquid or gas that has a degree of hazard rating in health,
flammability or reactivity of 3 or 4 and that is used directly in re-
search, laboratory or production processes that have, as their end
product, materials that are not hazardous.
HEALTH HAZARD is a classification of a chemical for which
there is statistically significant evidence based on at least one
study conducted in accordance with established scientific princi-
ples that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed per-
sons. The term "health hazard" includes chemicals that are
carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive toxins, irri-
tants, corrosives, sensitizers, hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neuro-
toxins, agents that act on the hematopoietic system, and agents
that damage the lungs, skin, eyes or mucous membranes.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING is the vertical distance above a ref-
erence datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat
roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of
the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum
shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a
greater height of building:
1. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground
surface within a 5 -foot (1524 mm) horizontal distance of the exte-
rior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is
not more than 10 feet (3048 mm) above lowest grade.
2. An elevation 10 feet (3048 mm) higher than the lowest grade
when the sidewalk or ground surface described in Item 1 is more
than 10 feet (3048 mm) above lowest grade.
The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum
height of any segment of the building.
HELIPORT is an area of land or water or a structural surface
that is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take -off of he-
licopters, and any appurtenant areas that are used, or intended for
use, for heliport buildings and other heliport facilities.
HELISTOP is the same as a heliport, except that no refueling,
maintenance, repairs or storage of helicopters is permitted.
HIGHLY TOXIC MATERIAL is a material that produces a
lethal dose or a lethal concentration that falls within any of the fol-
lowing categories:
1-9
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
149239
L
r
INSPECTION REPORT
f CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA
(763)) 572-3604
k ? ADDRESS
k,
! OWNER
BUILDER
i'
INSPECTION REPORT
If no corrections are listed above, aproval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in
violation of the ordinance if you do t call for the proper inspections and make
corrections as called for.
�J
DUa/o 4 �q
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 235
MY OF 2002
FRIDLEY
Date: September 18, 2002
To: William Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
Stephanie Hanson, Planner
Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-13, Jim Kiewel
M-02-11
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, was originally seeking a variance to
increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to
1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additional 28'X 37' second accessory
building. At the August 26, 2002, City Council meeting, Mr. Kiewel requested the Council
not take action on his item until he had a chance to review alternative layouts.
Mr. Kiewel's new proposal is to construct an 1,110 sq. foot (30' X 37') expansion
connected to the existing garage by a stairway. Thus, the new request is to expand the
allowable square footage of the first accessory building from 1,000 square feet to 1,686
square feet. If granted, the variance would also allow the footprint of the garage to exceed
the square footage of the home's living area, by approximately 282 square feet. The
garage addition is still proposed to have a flat roof and pre -formed concrete walls. A site
plan of the new proposal is in your packet.
APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR
#02-13. After reviewing the facts, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the
request due to a lack of hardship.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends denial of the variance request. The petitioner does not meet the
statutory definition of hardship and the proposed expansion has an industrial look that is
not in character with residential properties in Fridley. Staff recommends the petitioner
obtain a SUP to construct a detached garage, no larger than square feet in size, and
architecturally finished to match the existing residence. Such a garage would not require a
variance.
STIPULATIONS
If the Council does approve the new request, staff would advise attaching the following
stipulations.
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
6. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto
adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed
necessary by City Staff.
7. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff
velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain
garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to
issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being
"finaled".
8. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Jim Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To increase the allowable square footage of
all accessory buildings form 1,400 square
feet to 1,612 square feet.
Existing Zoning.
Residential - 1
Location:
1631 Rice Creek Road
Size:
27,550 sq. ft. .6 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family, R-1
E: City of New Brighton
S: Single Family, R-1
W: Single Family, R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07.0l.B.(1) requires that the total area of
all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square
feet.
Zoning History.
Lot platted in 1939.
Home built in 1953.
VAR #95-23 granted in 1996.
VAR #95-23 expires, as it wasn't built, 1997.
VAR #00-04 withdrawn prior to action.
Legal Description of Property:
The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190'
thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to an
55
easement over the S. 30' thereof for road
purposes.
Council Action:
August 26, 2002
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road.
Physical Characteristics:
Typical suburban residential landscaping, lot
slopes towards back.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek
Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400
square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28' X 37' detached
garage.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Additional storage is needed for vehicles &
boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to
prevent theft, or damage from weather or
vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite
storage costs & give a clean appearance to the
neighborhood. " Jim Kiewel
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance
request.
No similar variances to allow the square
footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400
square feet have been granted.
Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of
hardship
This request is not comparable to petitioners
previous request (attached garage expanded to
be 1,392 square feet)
VAR #02-13
REQUEST
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction
of an additional 28' X 37' detached garage.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property is located north of Rice Creek Road near the New Brighton border. The home is a 1,500
square foot walkout rambler with a 576 square foot (24'x24') attached two car garage. The home was
built in 1953 and the attached garage was added in 1961. The petitioner has owned the property since
1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage addition to increase the size of
accessory structures to a total of 2,064 square feet. In 2000, the petitioner submitted a variance
application, which was withdrawn prior to formal action, to increase the size of accessory structures to
1,666 square feet.
PRIOR VARIANCE REQUESTS
The 1995 variance request, VAR #95-23, was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996
after a total of two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory building to
1,392 square feet.
The 24' by 24' attached garage was built as a two story garage, which made the actual square footage
of the original garage 1,152 square feet. The original request for Variance #95-23 was to place a 24'
X 38' addition attached to the existing garage and home. A variance was needed as this request would
not only exceed the square footage of the home, but would also exceed the 1,400 square foot limit for
all accessory buildings. This request increased the total square footage of accessory buildings to 2,064
square feet and was denied by the Appeals Commission at their September 12, 1995 meeting.
When the variance request went to the City Council on October 2, 1995, the petitioner reduced his
request to 1,776 square feet of total accessory buildings by reducing the size of the existing lower
garage unit to 288 square feet. This request was denied by the City Council.
The petitioner then asked the Council to reconsider his request on October 23, 1995. The petitioner
agreed to remove the garage door from the lower level and block the space in so that it was not
considered part of the accessory structure. This reduced the petitioner's request to 1,392 total square
feet of accessory structures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the necessity of any
changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On February 12, 1996 the City Council
determined that the ordinance did not need to be changed and at their February 26th, 1996 meeting
granted approval of VAR #95-23 to allow the size of a first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet.
The garage was not constructed and the variance expired in 1997.
56
Due to the lapse of Variance #95-23, the petitioner applied for another variance on March 17, 2000.
The March 2000 request, Variance #00-04, was for a 30' X 33' (990 square foot) detached garage
addition. The total square footage of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square feet. Staff
recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the petitioner withdrew the request
prior to the Appeals Commission.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (current Request) & VAR #95-23 (Past variance granted,
that lapsed)
Through out the application process, the petitioner has repeatedly inferred to staff that we should
recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem granting this variance
request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in scope and there is
no hardship warranting the granting of a variance.
The previous variance, which was granted but lapsed after one year when construction had not started,
was a variance to allow an attached first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet rather than the
Code required 1,000 square feet for first accessory buildings. The total request was 8 square feet less
than the maximum square footage of all accessory buildings allowed by code. Both of the petitioners
previous attempts to get the total square footage of the accessory buildings over 1,400 square feet were
denied due to a lack of hardship. The request to increase the allowable square footage to 2,064 square
feet was denied by the Appeals Commission due to a lack of hardship. The revised request to increase
the allowable square footage to 1,776 square feet was then denied by the Council due to a lack of
hardship.
To point out the differences in even simpler terms, the first request was for a 34' X 24' (816 square
foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28' X 37' (1,036 square foot) detached
garage addition. With VAR #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392
square feet. With VAR #02-13, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is proposed to be
1,612 sq. ft.. The granted variance was 8 square feet under the total allowed by Code. The requested
variance is 212 square feet more than allowed by Code.
(View of proposed garage location from North) `Addition Location` (View of proposed garage location from West
57
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance request.
• No similar variances to allow the square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet
have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to be
1,392 square feet)
STIPULATION
Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a bardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if the
property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being'Tmaled".
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage.
7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in accordance with
building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first
obtaining an additional variance.
8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent
properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City Staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be
slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping.
Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be
installed prior to building permit being "finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building
elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully obtained to
construct the proposed detached garage.
Cm'OE
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287
—HAND DELIVERED—
September 9, 2002
Mr. James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
Per your telephone request for additional time in bringing your variance request back to
the City Council, this letter formally extends your "60 Day" date until November 8, 2002.
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local governmental units are required to complete action
on land use requests within 60 days, unless the petitioner requests additional time.
Based on the City's application schedule, the Council was required to act on your item
on September 9, 2002. Due to the fact that you requested additional time, the City is
exercising its right to extend the "60 Day" date until November 8, 2002.
When you are ready to re -appear before the City Council, please notify me one week
prior to the Council meeting in order to place your item on the Council's agenda. The
following is a listing of upcoming Council meetings and the day by which you must
notify me to be placed on the agenda.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE
AGENDA DEADLINE
September 23, 2002
September 16, 2002
October 14; 2002
October 7, 2002
October 28, 2002
October 21, 2002
November 4, 2002'
October 28, 2002
'State Statute 15.99 requires that the Council act on your request by this meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact
me at 572-3599.
Sincerely,
Paul Bolin, AICP
Planning Coordinator
C-02-112
To: City of Fridley
Appeals commission / City council
From: James Kiewel
Re: Variance # 02-04
After reviewing the City of Fridley land use application provided to me by Paul Bolin
I found the following issues needed to be addressed.
Summary of Project is not correct.
This Variance does not exceed 1400 S/F of Total Floor Area as defined in the complete
reading of Fridley City Code # 205.07.0l.B.(1). Which reads: THE TOTAL FLOOR
AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE
FEET.
Minnesota State Code chapter (2), "Definitions and Abbreviations " Section 207-
F defines FLOOR AREA as
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF A
BUILDING OR PORTION THEROF, EXCLUSIVE OF VENT SHAFTS AND
COURTS. THE FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING, OR PORTION THEROF, NOT
PROVIDED WITH SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE THE USABLE
AREA UNDER THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR
ABOVE.
This is in fact an internal dimension. Not external dimensions as provided by planning
staff.
Also, this (PRIVATE GARAGE) is the (FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING) as defined
in Fridley City Code 205.07 (4a).
This proposed ( Private Garage ) is in fact, attached to and a portion of, the principal
building. See definitions ( PRIVATE GARAGE) Fridley City Code (205.03) # 29
See site plan. Garage is attached. Not detached. or Sko-fto' Cock C 20 6. G)
Summary of analysis is not correct.
1. In 1991 the Fridley City Council approved a variance of 1932 square feet to my
neighbor, Mr. Klucsar at 1420 Rice Creek Road.
Referenced from Planning staff documents. Prior variance 95-23. city council
meeting October 19, 1995.
2. Hardship has not changed from prior variance # 95-23.
3. This request is comparable to prior variance # 95-23.
External dimensions vary slightly due to the addition of dwelling area.
However, when reading Fridley code Sec. 205.07.0l.B.(1) the difference is 8 feet.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
PAGE 23
12e. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-13, BY JIM KIEWEL, TO INCREASE THE
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE. (WARD 2) (TABLED AUGUST 26,
2002):
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that the item Councilmember Barnette
asked to have added to the agenda pertains to Mr. James Kiewel's variance request. It was
originally scheduled to be on tonight's agenda, but was removed at the request of Mr. Kiewel.
According to law, he does have 120 days to act on this item. By his request, he also recognizes
that he moves into the second 60 day window of time. The City has 60 additional days and
before the end of that time, of that date we need to act on this item, with or without any
information by Mr. Kiewel.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove this item from the table. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to table consideration of Variance Request, VAR #02-13
by James Kiewel, in order to ascertain the necessary information to study the request, and extend
the review period for City Council action an additional 60 days and notify the petitioner in
writing of the 60 -day extension. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. INFORMAL STATUS R
Mayor Lund stated that everyone i invited to attend the 9/11 memorial program in Fridley. It
will be a good program with Rick Ku%eve
as a guest speaker.
Councilmember Bolkcom encourageone to vote on Tuesday.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the train Wstle meeting is on September 24.
Mayor Lund stated that Call on the Council is at 6:O�p.m. Tuesday.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 24
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember B ette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember
Wolfe.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL YOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002, CITY CO IL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Signe L. Johnson \ Scott Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
it
C 0 I _4"
J L i°" L Ir- If I- It 1st
II
i
I
lig
I
" I
'II
i
;I
ii
I�I
�!I
CitySight
SnapShot
Variance Request #02-13
1631 Rlce Geek Road
Selected Parcel Info
Parcel Info:
Map Legend•
LABEL STREET NAME
LABEL WATER LABELS
------ CITY LIMITS
------------ QUARTER SECTIONS
— — — STREET CENTERLINE
WATER
PARCELS
Selected Parcels (1)
N
tom'
Map Scale:1" = 200' P -siert
Map Date: August 1, 2002 FAB UNLU"D
Data Date: December 2000
Note: The information provided by this program has been compiled from recorded deeds, plats, taxmaps, surveys, and other public records and data. It is not a legally recorded map or survey and is
not intended to be used as one. Users of this data are hereby notified that the information sources mentioned above should be consulted for verification of the information.
r4
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 9
Councilmember Barnette stated that he was impressed wi the brochure from School District 16
regarding the levy. The City has four different scho districts within its boundaries, and he
supports them all.
Mayor Lund thanked Ms. Schaub and Mr. WesAan for coming and wished them good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
13. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-13, BY JIM KIEWEL, TO INCREASE THE
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD N.E. (WARD 2):
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that this is a variance request for the
property at 1631 Rice Creek Road. Mr. Jim Kiewel is the property owner. He is seeking a
variance to increase the allowable square footage of all of accessory buildings from 1,400 square
feet to 1,612 square feet, to allow the construction of an additional 28' x 37' detached garage.
The petitioner must also receive a special use permit from the Planning Commission and City
Council prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Mr. Hickok stated that the site is 27,000 square feet. The lot was platted in 1939 and the home
was built in 1953. A variance was granted in 1996 that was good for one year and expired due to
inactivity. In the year 2000, another variance request was made and was withdrawn prior to
action by the City Council. The first variance was approved by the City Council on February 26,
1996, after two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory buildings
to 1,390 square feet. In 2000, Variance #00-04 was withdrawn by the petitioner before the
Appeals Commission could take action.
Mr. Hickok stated that the summary of hardship states: "Additional storage is needed for vehicles
and boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to prevent theft or damage from weather or
vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite storage costs, and would give a clean appearance
to the neighborhood."
Mr. Hickok stated that this would be a concrete construction, flat roof garage. On August 14, the
Appeals Commission denied the request due to a lack of hardship. Staff recommended that
Council concur with the Appeals Commission and deny this request due to the fact that no
similar variances allowing square footage .of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet
have been granted. The request does not meet the statutory definition of hardship.
Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner shall obtain in the event that this is granted the following
stipulations are recommended: 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to
construction; 2) The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by July 1, 2003; 3) The
accessory structure shall not be used as a home occupation; 4) The home must be open to City
officials prior to issuance of the building permit to determine if the property is a legitimate single
family structure; 5) All sheds on the property must be removed prior to the building permit being
filed; 6) Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the
3k, •�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 10
garage; 7) New dwelling areas labeled on site plan must be separated from the garage in
accordance with the building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage
area without first obtaining an additional variance; 8) Silt fence required along the east, west, and
north property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are
also required as deemed necessary by City staff, 9) Due to steep grades and the amount of
additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be slowed down through the use of
sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved
by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building
permit being "finaled;" 10) New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing
home and garage. Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City staff prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 11) Variance shall become null and void unless a special use
permit is successfully obtained to construct the proposed detached garage.
Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner has submitted a new site plan. The new site plan differs in
that it changes the floor area dimensions to meet his interpretation of code requirements, and it
identifies the "fire wall" between the garage and "dwelling" areas.
Mr. Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E., stated that he understands that there have been
allegations about the home being rented out as a duplex. He said he does not know how that
happened. He stated that City officials came to his house one day to inspect the property and
went through his mail as well.
Mr. Hickok stated that there are also concerns that this home was rented out in the past as a
duplex. He said he personally received calls from realtors who indicated that the property was
being sold as a duplex.
Mayor Lund asked if he wanted them to change the request.
Mr. Kiewel stated that the new plan he gave them pertained to external dimensions.
Mayor Lund stated that Staff did draw a line through his calculations and added their
calculations.
Mr. Kiewel stated that would be understandable.
Mayor Lund stated that staff is referring to inside measurement versus exterior measurement.
Mr. Kiewel stated that 37' x 30' would be 1,686 square feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that 37' x 30' would be 1,110 square feet with the total other measurements
equaling 1,686 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that with respect to the stipulation requiring a hard surface driveway by July 1,
2002, he requested that it be changed to one year from the issuance of the variance. He said he
may not be able to meet the deadline.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 11
Mayor Lund stated that Stipulation 8 is a temporary measure, and staff will want to see a more
permanent solution to the potential drainage problem.
Mr. Kiewel stated that whatever it takes, he will take care of it. Stipulation 10 may not be
necessary. The building is basically a flat roof garage with stucco walls to match the home.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the stipulation was different than anything else Council has
seen.
Mr. Hickok stated that it was not.
Mr. Kiewel stated that Stipulation 11 should be changed to as follows: "The petitioner shall
obtain a special use permit if required by Fridley City Code." He does not believe it is a
detached garage. Fridley City Code 205.07(Q-1 specifically excludes the first accessory
building as a private garage with no special use required. How can a garage that is separated
from dwelling area can be detached. He could not find a definition in the City code as to what
detached and attached means. He said that Webster's dictionary states that detached means
standing by itself or separate or unconnected.
Mayor Lund asked him if wanted to word it as detached or attached.
Mr. Kiewel stated that it would be at 1,687 square feet if it was attached.
Mr. Hickok stated that it would be over 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that in his calculations, he is including the dwelling area as a garage area.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak if it was detached or attached.
Councilmember Billings asked if the City Code refers to attached or detached, or if it refers to
the first accessory building or second accessory building. The real question here is not whether
the building is detached or attached, but whether it is one garage or two garages.
Mr. Kiewel asked if it would make it one garage if he establishes a corridor between the
buildings.
Councilmember Billings stated that he thought it would become a hallway.
Mayor Lund stated that an extension to a garage typically would expand it outwards from the
garage by adding another garage door.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that even if it was considered as one garage, it is still way over
the square footage allowed pursuant to the City Code. She said they were talking about
accessory building and asked how it could not be an accessory building.
4,
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 12
Mr. Kiewel stated that when his house was originally built, it had a garage on the top and the
bottom. This was common in Fridley at that time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they have to look at what the City Code says now.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he should probably reconsider his proposal and come back with
something that is more suitable and acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Lund stated that if it was a matter discussing the stipulations, with minor changes, it may
be reasonable. He has only heard one comment from one neighbor and that was addressed. He
is more concerned about better plans for the impervious surface that is going to be created. This
is a huge addition that will not be aesthetically pleasing. He said he understands that Mr. Kiewel
has his rights, and it is his property, but he is also concerned with the way the surrounding
neighborhood feels.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was possible to add onto the garage addition that is already
there.
Mr. Hickok stated that it is doable.
Mayor Lund stated that there is room to the left side of the property to add on a garage. He said
he would like to see a plan. His concern with the flat roof is the size. He is also concerned about
the drainage issues.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if they should table this item and ask Mr. Kiewel to come back
with another design.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he would come back with another design.
Mayor Lund stated that he is not against that, but there is a 60 -day requirement they have to act
on.
Mr. Kiewel stated that his intention is to start in the spring.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they could take a little .bit longer time and extend the 60
days.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he would like to get this resolved fairly quickly.
Mr. Burns asked if he needed 1,440 square feet or 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that he would need 1,400 square feet or under.
Mr. Burns stated that then there would be no further Council action needed.
Mayor Lund stated that they could make a motion to extend the time.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 13
Mr. Kiewel asked when the next City Council meeting was.
Mayor Lund stated that it would be September 23 and that would be outside the 60 days.
Councilmember Billings asked if they could make the motion on September 9 if it is not resolved
at that time.
Mayor Lund stated that they could do that. Mr. Kiewel can present plans to staff prior to
September 9 and if it is under 1,400 square feet and a variance is not needed, it would not be a
problem.
Mr. Kiewel thanked Council.
Mr. Hickok stated that attached means that no dwelling may be between the existing garage and
the proposed garage.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to table this until September 9. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13a. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY ITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
AUGUST 12,2002:
Councilmember Bolkcbm stated that under Item 4, it ays that additional sealcoating is for the
City of Columbia Heights. It should be added at Columbia Heights is requesting the
sealcoating and paying for the additional costs.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the
"Councilmember Bolkcom asked if any d
two neighbors."
sentence on Page 13 should state as follows:
is that took place would also involve the other
Councilmember Bolkcom statedthat and r the "Informal Status Reports" section, she thought it
should state that the repair of the bike ay project behind Edgewater Gardens will take some
time. Anoka County is working with ,e Rice Creek Watershed District and the railroad due to
erosion problems.
MOTION by Councilmember BAnette to approve the minutes with the noted corrections.
Seconded by Councilmember Bo com.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 14
14. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the train whistle meeting is o September 24. Everyone is
invited. A railroad safety officer/engineer will be at the meeting o discuss why there are train
whistles. The presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Lund stated that a number of civic organizations wille putting together a September 11
tribute. He would like to invite all service clubs, residents d people outside of Fridley to this
event. It will take place on Wednesday, September 11 at :00 p.m. at the Fridley High School
football field. The program will conclude at 9:00 p.m The keynote speaker will be Rick
Kupchella, the weekend anchor from KARE 11.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it would be a
have a moment of silence.
Councilmember Barnette stated that next Tuesday
will drive safely.
Councilmember Billings stated that the stre
was tabled. He asked if there was an update.
day to wear red, white and blue and to
the start of school, and he hopes everyone
item that was on the agenda last week
Mr. Knaak stated that there was no update, d that he would not be able to speak with the other
attorney until next week.
Councilmember Billings stated that he is ery troubled by Mr. Kiewel's allegation that four or
five years ago, some employees of the C' of Fridley were present at his home, and without his
permission were going through his U.S mail. It is a serious allegation and he does not take it
lightly. It needs to be investigated.
MOTION by Councilmember Billino to request that the City Attorney, or designee of the City
Attorney, conduct an investigation of this incident and present the information to the appropriate
City of Fridley officials, and if n d be, present the results of that information to any other
officials in our government who/
ho need to be aware of that. Seconded by Councilmember
Barnette.
Mayor Lund stated that he has
F-VITRUPIRV
MOTION by Councilmem
Barnette.
as to why it was not investigated seven years ago.
Wolfe to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember
0
Vi AGENDA ITEM
gL)& CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 260 2002
My OF
FRIDLEY
Date: August 21, 2002 k
To: William Burns, City Manager I
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
Stephanie Hanson, Planner
Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-13, Jim Kiewel
M-02-94
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable
square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to
allow the construction of an additional 28'X 37' detached garage.
APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR
#02-13. After reviewing the facts, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the
request due to a lack of hardship.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. The petitioner does
not meet the statutory definition of hardship. If the Council does approve this request, staff
would advise attaching the following stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
53
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the
garage.
7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in
accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional
garage area without first obtaining an additional variance.
8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto
adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed
necessary by City Staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff
velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain
garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to
issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being
"finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully
obtained to construct the proposed detached garage.
54
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 14.2002
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Kuechle called the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson
Members Absent: Ken Vos
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road
1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST. VAR #02-13, BY JAMES KIEWEL:
Per Section 205.07.02.B(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the total square
footage of accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28 foot by 37 foot garage on the East 145 feet front and
rear thereof of the south 190 feet thereof of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22 (subject
to easement of record), generally located at 1631 Rice Creek Road.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated that Mr. Kiewel, the property owner, is seeking a variance to increase the
allowable square footage of all accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet
to allow the construction of an additional 28 x 37 foot detached garage. The petitioner must
also receive a special use permit from the Planning Commission and City Council prior to
issuance of any building permits for the proposed garage. Any second accessory structure over
240 square feet requires a special use permit.
Mr. Bolin stated that the lot was platted in 1939, and the existing home was built in 1953. A
variance for a garage addition was granted in 1996. That variance expired in 1997 because the
garage was not built. The petitioner applied for another variance for a garage addition in 2000,
but that request was withdrawn prior to any formal action being taken on the request by the City.
Mr. Bolin stated that Variance #95-23 was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996,
after two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory buildings
down to 1,392 square feet. Originally, the petitioner requested a variance for a total of 2,064
square feet, but it was changed to 1,776 square feet. Both requests were denied by the
Council, and a variance down to 1,392 square feet was approved. Variance #00-04 was
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 14.2002
PAGE 2
submitted two summers ago and that request was withdrawn by the petitioner before the
Appeals Commission took any action. That proposal was for 1,666 square feet of garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that since Mr. Kiewel was granted a variance in the past, this one should not be
any problem; however, there are a few differences. Variance #95-23 was a request for a 34 ft.
by 24 ft. (1,816 square foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28 ft. by 37
(1,036 square feet) detached garage addition. The garage is considered detached because it is
separated from the existing garage by living space. With variance #95-23, the total square
footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392 square feet. With this proposal, the total square
footage of all accessory buildings is 1,612 square feet, once the existing sheds are removed
from the property. Variance #95-23 is actually 8 square feet under the 1400 square foot total
allowed by code and the requested variance is 216 square feet more than what is allowed by
Code per total. A summary of the petitioner's hardship states: "Additional storage is needed for
vehicle and a boat. The vehicles need to be stored inside to prevent theft or damage from
weather or vandalism. This will allow me to save some off-site storage costs, and give a clean
appearance to the neighborhood.
Mr. Bolin stated that the addition would only be one story tall and would not be as tall as the rest
of the home and would have a flat roof line. Staff recommends denial due to no similar
variances in the past allowing square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square
feet. The petitioner does not meet the statutory definition of a hardship, and this request is not
comparable to the petitioner's previous request which was granted. If the Appeals Commission
and, ultimately, the City Council decide to grant this variance, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner obtain all necessary permits prior to instruction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation
4. The home must be open to city officials prior to issuance of the building permit to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. (There was concern in the
past that the home was being used as a duplex).
5. All sheds on the property must be removed prior to building permit being finaled out.
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the
garage.
7. The new dwelling area as labeled on a site plan must be separated from the garage in
accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional
garage area without first obtaining an additional variance.
8. A silt fence is required along the east, west and north property lines to prevent erosion
onto adjacent properties. Hay bales and swale areas are also required as deemed
necessary by City staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity
must be slowed own through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or
other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building
permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
11. The variance shall become null and void unless a special use permit is successfully
obtained to construct the proposed detached garage.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 3
Mr. Bolin stated that staff has not seen any elevations of the proposed garage yet, but
understand it will be pre -fab concrete with a flat roof. Staff has received a few calls from
neighbors who are concerned about this home taking on a more commercial appearance with
such a large garage and a flat roof that does not really match the architecture of the home.
Three calls from neighbors expressed concern with too much garage for a residential site, and
concern with erosion was also mentioned. Two neighbors are experiencing silting runoff from
this property with some previous yardwork that was done. A letter submitted by one of the
neighbors, James and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Ln, was reviewed by staff.
Mr. Bolin stated that the existing garage has a 576 square foot footprint. The proposed garage
will be 37 ft. by 28 ft. which is 1,036 square feet. An additional dwelling area which is 17 ft. by
37 ft. will separate the two garages. That will make the new garage detached. If one wanted to
consider the proposed garage as attached, the dwelling area would also need to be included.
That variance needed would be 2,241 square feet.
Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum variance request given was.
Mr. Bolin stated that the last variance approved for a second accessory building was Mr.
Kiewel's in 1996 at 1,392 square feet.
Mr. Jones asked if when erosion was involved, are people required to have a construction plan
submitted?
Mr. Bolin stated that a land alteration permit is required. Mr. Kiewel has been working with the
Assistant Public Works Director on getting the proper permit and silt fence in place.
Ms. Jackson asked if the current garage was a double garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that it is.
Ms. Jackson asked if the additional garage would be the equivalent of what square footage?
Mr. Bolin stated that across the front of the door would be facing north and that is a wide 2.5 car
garage in width.
Ms. Jackson stated that the current garage is a double garage and the new garage would be
larger.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it would be about two times larger.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
Mr. Zinter stated that 1,400 square feet is similar to surrounding residential garages.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct; 1,400 square feet is very common.
Mr. James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road, stated that he is surprised to see that this application
is incorrect. The square footage is out of line with what is actually proposed. Staff is using
exterior dimensions when they should be using interior dimensions according to the code which
states that total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet.
Minnesota State Code Section 207 F defines total area as the area included within the
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 4
surrounding exterior walls of the building. He is in compliance with the code on that basis. The
summary of analysis states that no similar variances allowed square footage of accessory
buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet. However, one variance was granted to Mr. Kluczar at
1420 Rice Creek Road for 1,432 square feet. That is based on the detached garage.
Mr. Kiewel stated that if you look under the definition of the first accessory building, It states that
it is omitted in special use permits. In Section 205.07.02.(1), the following uses are permitted in
R-1 districts: accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet.
By definition this cannot be a detached garage. It is attached to the primary structure. Section
205.07.01.B.(4) states that the following accessory use is allowed in R-1 districts: a private
garage used as the first accessory building.
Mr. Kiewel stated he does not understand the statutory definition of hardship. His neighbor's
hardship was that he needed more vehicle storage for cars. At the October 2, 1995, Council
meeting, when asked by Councilmember Schneider the hardship for the variance request, Mr.
Hickok stated that it was for the storage of vehicles.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he finds this entire document prejudicial to his request tonight. The codes
are made for everyone, and everyone should follow them. He is not asking for any more than
what is stated in Code.
Ms. Jackson asked if he would be putting in another hard surface driveway along the west side
of the property line.
Mr. Kiewel stated that on the west side of the property line, it might be tough to do before
construction, but after the structure was complete he could have that done.
Ms. Jackson stated that the green space would be reduced due to putting in another driveway.
Mr. Kiewel stated there is already a driveway. With the garage addition, he would take up
approximately 15% of the lot size under the codes.
Mr. Kuechle asked the building time table.
Mr. Kiewel stated that to put a driveway prior to construction would be too damaging with all the
trucks driving in over the asphalt.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he is asking for approval now, and there is almost 11 months to finish
the driveway. Is he looking at building this fall?
Mr. Kiewel stated that he is looking at building next spring.
Mr. Kuechle stated that calling this a detached garage was giving preferential treatment to the
petitioner.
Mr. Bolin stated that if it is considered an attached garage, they are looking at a variance to
exceed the maximum square footage of an attached accessory structure from 1,000 square feet
up to 2,241 square feet. If it is detached, which the staff, the City Attorney, and the Building
Official say it is, then a variance to increase that maximum allowable square footage from 1,400
square feet up to 1,612 square feet is needed.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 5
Mr. Kuechle stated that detached is giving the more preferable treatment.
Mr. Bolin stated that was correct.
Mr. Jones asked how it was considered a detached garage if it was attached to the house.
Mr. Bolin stated that you can only have one first accessory structure which is your original
garage. If you were to add on to the original garage and there was not a dwelling area
separating the two, this would not be a second accessory structure. It would be an expansion of
the first garage.
Mr. Kuechle stated that even if it is considered attached, it would make the variance request
larger than the variance request the petitioner is asking for now.
Mr. Kiewel stated that what court of law indicates that you can arbitrarily indicate that my
dwelling area is to be considered garage area for accessory structures? That is impossible. It
does not matter where he puts the garage as long as it is an accessory portion of the principal
building which is exactly what it is.
Mr. Kuechle stated that if it is considered the first accessory structure, the maximum the
petitioner could have is 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that can be expanded to 1,400 square feet under 205.07.01 which is exactly
what is in question here tonight.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it is over 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that attaching the dwelling area and indicating that it has accessory area, is
not right. By definition it is dwelling area. The floor area definitions are not correct either.
Ms. Jackson asked if the 37 foot wall next to the new dwelling area has a door.
Mr. Kiewel stated there is a door that goes right into the dwelling. The existing dwelling is also
attached through the rear garage through the dwelling area with the stairs that go down through
the garage area.
Ms. Jackson asked if that would be a fire wall.
Mr. Kiewel stated that the wall is concrete and cannot be moved and is load bearing. It is
required.
Ms. Jackson asked if that was already there.
Mr. Kiewel stated that it is not. He plans on building some additional dwelling area along with
the garage and it will be concrete.
Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum square footage is for an attached garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that the total square feet is 1,000 square feet.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 14.2002 PAGE 6
Mr. Kuechle stated that even if this is considered an attached garage, the petitioner is way over
1,000 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that is why he needs a variance for 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it is for 1,612 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that you are using a definition that is not in the code. He is using interior
definitions, not exterior.
Mr. Kuechle stated they have always used exterior definitions and he can take it up with the City
Council as to what the definitions should be. He has never looked at interior square footage. It
is always the footprint and that is Fridley's code as well.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he has chosen to exercise his rights under code and does not feel that he
should be discriminated against.
Mr. Bolin stated that the definition the petitioner is referring to is from the Uniform Building Code,
not from the City of Fridley code.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he would like to see the Fridley city code definitions.
Mr. Kuechle asked if his hardship was different than someone who wants to store more of their
material goods on that property.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he only wants to store vehicles. It is much better to store them inside.
His old variance was reviewed by Mayor Nee and he stated that it may set precedence for
vehicle storage. This creates a question of whether or not Council is being arbitrary in ways that
do not make sense. People should be encouraged to store their items. The hardship is difficult
to define. Being a capitalist in a free enterprise system, that is part of the price to pay.
Mr. Zinter asked if there has been recent theft or damage.
Mr. Kiewel stated that in the past there has been damage. Recently there has not been any
theft or damage.
Mr. Zinter stated that the cost of building a garage versus the cost saved from outside storage
would be a long payback for a structure like this.
Mr. Kiewel stated that in the long term, it is a lot more practical. If you have a lot of vehicles, it is
nice to store them in a garage.
Mr. Zinter asked if he would consider any options to stay within the code guidelines.
Mr. Kiewel stated he would not.
Mr. Jones asked what the difference in square footage would be if he stayed within code
guidelines.
Mr. Bolin stated that it would be 212 square feet.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 7
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Kiewel has seen the letter from James and Deborah Wright.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he did not and would like to see it.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to receive into the record the letter from James
and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Lane.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he spoke with his neighbors today, and they mentioned to him that the
City was alerted in May that this run-off of sand may be a problem. These are the new
neighbors that called in May, and he received no notice that this was a problem. He would have
corrected this had he known.
Mr. Jones asked how long the sand has been accumulating.
Mr. Kiewel stated that there is black dirt there right now and he has cleaned that up a little bit.
MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:59 P.M.
Ms. Jackson stated that she has driven by there often and adding a garage would be preferable
to the collection of storage spots. It certainly is not attractive with the dirt and the lack of
planting. She just cannot see a garage of this size. It is not a hardship if people choose to have
many vehicles. She gets a storage spot for her son's car when he goes to college, and they do
not try to make the driveway into a parking lot. The petitioner could build a smaller garage, and
she does not see approving a garage of this size.
Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred. There really is not any special hardship on the lot and the
way it is laid out is not conducive for a garage there. The 1991 variance granted was on a very
large lot on the south side of that street and was hidden more and did not have erosion or run-
off problems. It would be difficult to grant this variance.
Mr. Jones stated he is concerned about the size of this and he is having a difficult time
understanding the entire request. He is not sure what the hardship is. He is also concerned
about Mr. Kiewel's awareness of the problem and, on the other hand, not aware of the problem
with the erosion and stuff. It depends on what aspect he is talking about. Neighbors are
concerned and when he is asked him specifically, he is not aware of any problems.
Mr. Zinter stated that taking all the points accumulatively that he has heard, there is no
precedence for something of this size. The hardship did not seem a true hardship, and all the
stipulations are quite large compared to other variances. That is a warning flag for him.
Mr. Kuechle stated that this property is a large property at 27,000 square feet, but he does not
see that it is laid out well to handle this kind of structure because you have to go around the
house and down the hill which will cause a lot of runoff problems. This mitigates the fact that
the lot is a large lot.
A .
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002
PAGE 8
MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request,
VAR #02-13, by James Kiewel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated that this will go to City Council on August 26.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Tim Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To increase the allowable square footage of
all accessory buildings form 1,400 square
feet to 1,612 square feet.
Existing Zoning.
Residential - 1
Location:
1631 Rice Creek Road
Size:
27,550 sq. ft. .6 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family, R-1
E: City of New Brighton
S: Single Family, R-1
W: Single Family, R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07.01.B.(1) requires that the total area of
all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square
feet.
Zoning History:
Lot platted in 1939.
Home built in 1953.
VAR #95-23 granted in 1996.
VAR #95-23 expires, as it wasn't built, 1997.
VAR #00-04 withdrawn prior to action.
Legal Description of Property:
The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190'
thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to an
easement over the S. 30' thereof for road
purposes.
P*1
Council Action:
August 26, 2002
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road.
Physical Characteristics:
Typical suburban residential landscaping, lot
slones towards back.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Tim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek
Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400
square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28' X 37' detached
araae.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Additional storage is needed for vehicles &
boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to
prevent theft, or damage from weather or
vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite
storage costs & give a clean appearance to the
neighborhood. " Tim Kiewel
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance
request.
• No similar variances to allow the square
footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400
square feet have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of
hardship
This request is not comparable to petitioners
previous request (attached garage expanded to
be 1,392 square feet)
Staff Report Prepared by. Paul Bolin
VAR #02-13
REQUEST
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction
of an additional 28' X 37' detached garage.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property is located north of Rice Creek Road near the New Brighton border. The home is a 1,500
square foot walkout rambler with a 576 square foot (24'x24') attached twocar garage. The home was
built in 1953 and the attached garage was added in 1961. The petitioner has owned the property since
1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage addition to increase the size of
accessory structures to a total of 2,064 square feet. In 2000, the petitioner submitted a variance
application, which was withdrawn prior to formal action, to increase the size of accessory structures to
1,666 square feet.
PRIOR VARIANCE REQUESTS
The 1995 variance request, VAR #95-23, was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996
after a total of two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory building to
1,392 square feet.
The 24' by 24' attached garage was built as a two story garage, which made the actual square footage
of the original garage 1,152 square feet. The original request for Variance #95-23 was to place a 24'
X 38' addition attached to the existing garage and home. A variance was needed as this request would
not only exceed the square footage of the home, but would also exceed the 1,400 square foot limit for
all accessory buildings. This request increased the total square footage of accessory buildings to 2,064
square feet and was denied by the Appeals Commission at their September 12, 1995 meeting.
When the variance request went to the City Council on October 2, 1995, the petitioner reduced his
request to 1,776 square feet of total accessory buildings by reducing the size of the existing lower
garage unit to 288 square feet. This request was denied by the City Council.
The petitioner then asked the Council to reconsider his request on October 23, 1995. The petitioner
agreed to remove the garage door from the lower level and block the space in so that it was not
considered part of the accessory structure. This reduced the petitioner's request to 1,392 total square
feet of accessory structures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the necessity of any
changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On February 12, 1996 the City Council
determined that the ordinance did not need to be changed and at their February 26th, 1996 meeting
granted approval of VAR #95-23 to allow the size of a first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet.
The garage was not constructed and the variance expired in 1997.
24
Due to the lapse of Variance #95-23, the petitioner applied for another variance on March 17, 2000.
The March 2000 request, Variance #00-04, was for a 30' X 33' (990 square foot) detached garage
addition. The total square footage of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square feet. Staff
recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the petitioner withdrew the request
prior to the Appeals Commission.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (current Request) & VAR #95-23 (Past variance granted,
that lapsed)
Through out the application process, the petitioner has repeatedly inferred to staff that we should
recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem granting this variance
request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in scope and there is
no hardship warranting the granting of a variance.
The previous variance, which was granted but lapsed after one year when construction had not started,
was a variance to allow an attached first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet rather than the
Code required 1,000 square feet for first accessory buildings. The total request was 8 square feet less
than the maximum square footage of all accessory buildings allowed by code. Both of the petitioners
previous attempts to get the total square footage of the accessory buildings over 1,400 square feet were
denied due to a lack of hardship. The request to increase the allowable square footage to 2,064 square
feet was denied by the Appeals Commission due to a lack of hardship. The revised request to increase
the allowable square footage to 1,776 square feet was then denied by the Council due to a lack of
hardship.
To point out the differences in even simpler terms, the first request was for a 34' X 24' (816 square
foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28' X 37' (1,036 square foot) detached
garage addition. With VAR #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392
square feet. With VAR #02-13, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is proposed to be
1,612 sq. fL. The granted variance was 8 square feet under the total allowed by Code. The requested
variance is 212 square feet more than allowed by Code.
(View of proposed garage location from North) *Addition Location* (View of proposed garage location from West
25
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance request.
• No similar variances to allow the square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet
have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to be
1,392 square feet)
STIPULATION
Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached.
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if the
property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage.
7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in accordance with
building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first
obtaining an additional variance.
8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent
properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City Staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be
slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping.
Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be
installed prior to building permit being "finaled"
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building
elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully obtained to
construct
26
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 14, 2002
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Kuechle called the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Lary Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson
Members Absent: Ken Vos
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road
APPROVE THE JUNE 12 2002. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to approve the June 12, 2002, Appeals
Commission meeting minutes as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON. KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #02-13, BY JAMES KIEWEL:
Per Section 205.07.02.B(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the total square
footage of accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28 foot by 37 foot garage on the East 145 feet front and
rear thereof of the south 190 feet thereof of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22 (subject
to easement of record), generally located at 1631 Rice Creek Road.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated that Mr. Kiewel, the property owner, is seeking a variance to increase the
allowable square footage of all accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet
to allow the construction of an additional 28 x 37 foot detached garage. The petitioner must
also receive a special use permit from the Planning Commission and City Council prior to
issuance of any building permits for the proposed garage. Any second accessory structure over
240 square feet requires a special use permit.
Mr. Bolin stated that the lot was platted in 1939, and the existing home was built in 1953. A
variance for a garage addition was granted in 1996. That variance expired in 1997 because the
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 2
garage was not built. The petitioner applied for another variance for a garage addition in 2000,
but that request was withdrawn prior to any formal action being taken on the request by the City.
Mr. Bolin stated that Variance #95-23 was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996,
after two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory buildings
down to 1,392 square feet. Originally, the petitioner requested a variance for a total of 2,064
square feet, but it was changed to 1,776 square feet. Both requests were denied by the
Council, and a variance down to 1,392 square feet was approved. Variance #00-04 was
submitted two summers ago and that request was withdrawn by the petitioner before the
Appeals Commission took any action. That proposal was for 1,666 square feet of garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that since Mr. Kiewel was granted a variance in the past, this one should not be
any problem; however, there are a few differences. Variance #95-23 was a request for a 34 ft.
by 24 ft. (1,816 square foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28 ft. by 37
(1,036 square feet) detached garage addition. The garage is considered detached because it is
separated from the existing garage by living space. With variance #95-23, the total square
footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392 square feet. With this proposal, the total square
footage of all accessory buildings is 1,612 square feet, once the existing sheds are removed
from the property. Variance #95-23 is actually 8 square feet under the 1400 square foot total
allowed by code and the requested variance is 216 square feet more than what is allowed by
Code per total. A summary of the petitioner's hardship states: "Additional storage is needed for
vehicle and a boat. The vehicles need to be stored inside to prevent theft or damage from
weather or vandalism. This will allow me to save some off-site storage costs, and give a clean
appearance to the neighborhood.
Mr. Bolin stated that the addition would only be one story tall and would not be as tall as the rest
of the home and would have a flat roof line. Staff recommends denial due to no similar
variances in the past allowing square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square
feet. The petitioner does not meet the statutory definition of a hardship, and this request is not
comparable to the petitioner's previous request which was granted. If the Appeals Commission
and, ultimately, the City Council decide to grant this variance, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner obtain all necessary permits prior to instruction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation
4. The home must be open to city officials prior to issuance of the building permit to
determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. (There was concern in the
past that the home was being used as a duplex).
5. All sheds on the property must be removed prior to building permit being finaled out.
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the
garage.
7. The new dwelling area as labeled on a site plan must be separated from the garage in
accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional
garage area without first obtaining an additional variance.
8. A silt fence is required along the east, west and north property lines to prevent erosion
onto adjacent properties. Hay bales and swale areas are also required as deemed
necessary by City staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity
must be slowed own through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 3
other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building
permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
11. The variance shall become null and void unless a special use permit is successfully
obtained to construct the proposed detached garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff has not seen any elevations of the proposed garage yet, but
understand it will be pre -fab concrete with a flat roof. Staff has received a few calls from
neighbors who are concerned about this home taking on a more commercial appearance with
such a large garage and a flat roof that does not really match the architecture of the home.
Three calls from neighbors expressed concern with too much garage for a residential site, and
concern with erosion was also mentioned. Two neighbors are experiencing silting runoff from
this property with some previous yardwork that was done. A letter submitted by one of the
neighbors, James and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Ln, was reviewed by staff.
Mr. Bolin stated that the existing garage has a 576 square foot footprint. The proposed garage
will be 37 ft. by 28 ft. which is 1,036 square feet. An additional dwelling area which is 17 ft. by
37 ft. will separate the two garages. That will make the new garage detached. If one wanted to
consider the proposed garage as attached, the dwelling area would also need to be included.
That variance needed would be 2,241 square feet.
Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum variance request given was.
Mr. Bolin stated that the last variance approved for a second accessory building was Mr.
Kiewel's in 1996 at 1,392 square feet.
Mr. Jones asked if when erosion was involved, are people required to have a construction plan
submitted?
Mr. Bolin stated that a land alteration permit is required. Mr. Kiewel has been working with the
Assistant Public Works Director on getting the proper permit and silt fence in place.
Ms. Jackson asked if the current garage was a double garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that it is.
Ms. Jackson asked if the additional garage would be the equivalent of what square footage?
Mr. Bolin stated that across the front of the door would be facing north and that is a wide 2.5 car
garage in width.
Ms. Jackson stated that the current garage is a double garage and the new garage would be
larger.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it would be about two times larger.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
Mr. Zinter stated that 1,400 square feet is similar to surrounding residential garages.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 4
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct; 1,400 square feet is very common.
Mr. James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road, stated that he is surprised to see that this application
is incorrect. The square footage is out of line with what is actually proposed. Staff is using
exterior dimensions when they should be using interior dimensions according to the code which
states that total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet.
Minnesota State Code Section 207 F defines total area as the area included within the
surrounding exterior walls of the building. He is in compliance with the code on that basis. The
summary of analysis states that no similar variances allowed square footage of accessory
buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet. However, one variance was granted to Mr. Kluczar at
1420 Rice Creek Road for 1,432 square feet. That is based on the detached garage.
Mr. Kiewel stated that if you look under the definition of the first accessory building, It states that
it is omitted in special use permits. In Section 205.07.02.(1), the following uses are permitted in
R-1 districts: accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet.
By definition this cannot be a detached garage. It is attached to the primary structure. Section
205.07.01.B.(4) states that the following accessory use is allowed in R-1 districts: a private
garage used as the first accessory building.
Mr. Kiewel stated he does not understand the statutory definition of hardship. His neighbor's
hardship was that he needed more vehicle storage for cars. At the October 2, 1995, Council
meeting, when asked by Councilmember Schneider the hardship for the variance request, Mr.
Hickok stated that it was for the storage of vehicles.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he finds this entire document prejudicial to his request tonight. The codes
are made for everyone, and everyone should follow them. He is not asking for any more than
what is stated in Code.
Ms. Jackson asked if he would be putting in another hard surface driveway along the west side
of the property line.
Mr. Kiewel stated that on the west side of the property line, it might be tough to do before
construction, but after the structure was complete he could have that done.
Ms. Jackson stated that the green space would be reduced due to putting in another driveway.
Mr. Kiewel stated there is already a driveway. With the garage addition, he would take up
approximately 15% of the lot size under the codes.
Mr. Kuechle asked the building time table.
Mr. Kiewel stated that to put a driveway prior to construction would be too damaging with all the
trucks driving in over the asphalt.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he is asking for approval now, and there is almost 11 months to finish
the driveway. Is he looking at building this fall?
Mr. Kiewel stated that he is looking at building next spring.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14.2002 PAGE
Mr. Kuechle stated that calling this a detached garage was giving preferential treatment to the
petitioner.
Mr. Bolin stated that if it is considered an attached garage, they are looking at a variance to
exceed the maximum square footage of an attached accessory structure from 1,000 square feet
up to 2,241 square feet. If it is detached, which the staff, the City Attorney, and the Building
Official say it is, then a variance to increase that maximum allowable square footage from 1,400
square feet up to 1,612 square feet is needed.
Mr. Kuechle stated that detached is giving the more preferable treatment.
Mr. Bolin stated that was correct.
Mr. Jones asked how it was considered a detached garage if it was attached to the house.
Mr. Bolin stated that you can only have one first accessory structure which is your original
garage. If you were to add on to the original garage and there was not a dwelling area
separating the two, this would not be a second accessory structure. It would be an expansion of
the first garage.
Mr. Kuechle stated that even.if it is considered attached, it would make the variance request
larger than the variance request the petitioner is asking for now.
Mr. Kiewel stated that what court of law indicates that you can arbitrarily indicate that my
dwelling area is to be considered garage area for accessory structures? That is impossible. It
does not matter where he puts the garage as long as it is an accessory portion of the principal
building which is exactly what it is.
Mr. Kuechle stated that if it is considered the first accessory structure, the maximum the
petitioner could have is 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that can be expanded to 1,400 square feet under 205.07.01 which is exactly
what is in question here tonight.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it is over 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that attaching the dwelling area and indicating that it has accessory area, is
not right. By definition it is dwelling area. The floor area definitions are not correct either.
Ms. Jackson asked if the 37 foot wall next to the new dwelling area has a door.
Mr. Kiewel stated there is a door that goes right into the dwelling. The existing dwelling is also
attached through the rear garage through the dwelling area with the stairs that go down through
the garage area.
Ms. Jackson asked if that would be a fire wall.
Mr. Kiewel stated that the wall is concrete and cannot be moved and is load bearing. It is
required.
Ms. Jackson asked if that was already there.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 6_
Mr. Kiewel stated that it is not. He plans on building some additional dwelling area along with
the garage and it will be concrete.
Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum square footage is for an attached garage.
Mr. Bolin stated that the total square feet is 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Kuechle stated that even if this is considered an attached garage, the petitioner is way over
1,000 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that is why he needs a variance for 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it is for 1,612 square feet.
Mr. Kiewel stated that you are using a definition that is not in the code. He is using interior
definitions, not exterior.
Mr. Kuechle stated they have always used exterior definitions and he can take it up with the City
Council as to what the definitions should be. He has never looked at interior square footage. It
is always the footprint and that is Fridley's code as well.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he has chosen to exercise his rights under code and does not feel that he
should be discriminated against.
Mr. Bolin stated that the definition the petitioner is referring to is from the Uniform Building Code,
not from the City of Fridley code.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he would like to see the Fridley city code definitions.
Mr. Kuechle asked if his hardship was different than someone who wants to store more of their
material goods on that property.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he only wants to store vehicles. It is much better to store them inside.
His old variance was reviewed by Mayor Nee and he stated that it may set precedence for
vehicle storage. This creates a question of whether or not Council is being arbitrary in ways that
do not make sense. People should be encouraged to store their items. The hardship is difficult
to define. Being a capitalist in a free enterprise system, that is part of the price to pay.
Mr. Zinter asked if there has been recent theft or damage.
Mr. Kiewel stated that in the past there has been damage. Recently there has not been any
theft or damage.
Mr. Zinter stated that the cost of building a garage versus the cost saved from outside storage
would be a long payback for a structure like this.
Mr. Kiewel stated that in the long term, it is a lot more practical. If you have a lot of vehicles, it is
nice to store them in a garage.
Mr. Zinter asked if he would consider any options to stay within the code guidelines.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 7
Mr. Kiewel stated he would not.
Mr. Jones asked what the difference in square footage would be if he stayed within code
guidelines.
Mr. Bolin stated that it would be 212 square feet.
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Kiewel has seen the letter from James and Deborah Wright.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he did not and would like to see it.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to receive into the record the letter from James
and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Lane.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kiewel stated that he spoke with his neighbors today, and they mentioned to him that the
City was alerted in May that this run-off of sand may be a problem. These are the new
neighbors that called in May, and he received no notice that this was a problem. He would have
corrected this had he known.
Mr. Jones asked how long the sand has been accumulating.
Mr. Kiewel stated that there is black dirt there right now and he has cleaned that up a little bit.
MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:59 P.M.
Ms. Jackson stated that she has driven by there often and adding a garage would be preferable
to the collection of storage spots. It certainly is not attractive with the dirt and the lack of
planting. She just cannot see a garage of this size. It is not a hardship if people choose to have
many vehicles. She gets a storage spot for her son's car when he goes to college, and they do
not try to make the driveway into a parking lot. The petitioner could build a smaller garage, and
she does not see approving a garage of this size.
Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred. There really is not any special hardship on the lot and the
way it is laid out is not conducive for a garage there. The 1991 variance granted was on a very
large lot on the south side of that street and was hidden more and did not have erosion or run-
off problems. It would be difficult to grant this variance.
Mr. Jones stated he is concerned about the size of this and he is having a difficult time
understanding the entire request. He is not sure what the hardship is. He is also concerned
about Mr. Kiewel's awareness of the problem and, on the other hand, not aware of the problem
with the erosion and stuff. It depends on what aspect he is talking about. Neighbors are
concerned and when he is asked him specifically, he is not aware of any problems.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 8
Mr. Zinter stated that taking all the points accumulatively that he has heard, there is no
precedence for something of this size. The hardship did not seem a true hardship, and all the
stipulations are quite large compared to other variances. That is a warning flag for him.
Mr. Kuechle stated that this property is a large property at 27,000 square feet, but he does not
see that it is laid out well to handle this kind of structure because you have to go around the
house and down the hill which will cause a lot of runoff problems. This mitigates the fact that
the lot is a large lot.
MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request,
VAR #02-13, by James Kiewel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated that this will go to City Council on August 26.
2. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Bolin stated there are four variances for the August 28, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Zinter, seconded by Mr. Jones, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 14, 2002, APPEALS COMMISSION ADJOURNED
AT 8:13 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
j, 4'*�-
Sign L. ic&son
Recording Secretary
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Jim Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To increase the allowable square footage
of all accessory buildings form 1,400
square feet to 1,612 square feet.
Existing Zoning:
Residential - 1
Location:
1631 Rice Creek Road
Size:
27,550 sq. ft. .6 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family, R-1
E: City of New Brighton
S: Single Family, R-1
W: Single Family, R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07.0l.B.(1) requires that the total area
of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400
square feet.
Zoning History:
Lot platted in 1939.
Home built in 1953.
VAR #95-23 granted in 1996.
VAR #95-23 expires, as it wasn't built, 1997.
VAR #00-04 withdrawn prior to action.
Legal Description of Property:
The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190'
thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to
an easement over the S. 30' thereof for road
purposes.
Council Action:
August 26, 2002
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road.
Physical Characteristics:
Typical suburban residential
landscaping, lot slopes towards back.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek
Road, is seeking to increase the allowable
square footage of all accessory buildings form
1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow
the construction of an additional 28' X 37'
detached garage.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Additional storage is needed for vehicles &
boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to
prevent theft, or damage from weather or
vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite
storage costs & give a clean appearance to the
neighborhood. " Jim Kiewel
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance
request.
• No similar variances to allow the square
footage of accessory buildings to exceed
1,400 square feet have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition
of hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners
previous request (attached garage expanded
to be 1,392 square feet)
Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin
VAR #02-13
REQUEST
Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square
footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28' X 37' detached garage.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property is located north of Rice Creek Road near the New Brighton border. The home is a
1,500 square foot walkout rambler with a 576 square foot (24'x24') attached twocar garage. The
home was built in 1953 and the attached garage was added in 1961. The petitioner has owned
the property since 1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage
addition to increase the size of accessory structures to a total of 2,064 square feet. In 2000, the
petitioner submitted a variance application, which was withdrawn prior to formal action, to
increase the size of accessory structures to 1,666 square feet.
PRIOR VARIANCE REQUESTS
The 1995 variance request, VAR #95-23, was approved by the City Council on February 26,
1996 after a total of two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory
building to 1,392 square feet.
The 24' by 24' attached garage was built as a two story garage, which made the actual square
footage of the original garage 1,152 square feet. The original request for Variance #95-23 was to
place a 24' X 38' addition attached to the existing garage and home. A variance was needed as
this request would not only exceed the square footage of the home, but would also exceed the
1,400 square foot limit for all accessory buildings. This request increased the total square
footage of accessory buildings to 2,064 square feet and was denied by the Appeals Commission
at their September 12, 1995 meeting.
When the variance request went to the City Council on October 2, 1995, the petitioner reduced
his request to 1,776 square feet of total accessory buildings by reducing the size of the existing
lower garage unit to 288 square feet. This request was denied by the City Council.
The petitioner then asked the Council to reconsider his request on October 23, 1995. The
petitioner agreed to remove the garage door from the lower level and block the space in so that it
was not considered part of the accessory structure. This reduced the petitioner's request to 1,392
total square feet of accessory structures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the
necessity of any changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On February 12, 1996
the City Council determined that the ordinance did not need to be changed and at their February
26', 1996 meeting granted approval of VAR #95-23 to allow the size of a first accessory
building to be 1,392 square feet. The garage was not constructed and the variance expired in
1997.
Due to the lapse of Variance #95-23, the petitioner applied for another variance on March 17,
2000. The March 2000 request, Variance #00-04, was for a 30' X 33' (990 square foot) detached
garage addition. The total square footage of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square
feet. Staff recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the petitioner
withdrew the request prior to the Appeals Commission.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (current Request) & VAR #95-23 (past variance granted, that
lapsed)
Through out the application process, the petitioner has repeatedly inferred to staff that we should
recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem granting this
variance request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in
scope and there is no hardship warranting the granting of a variance.
The previous variance, which was granted but lapsed after one year when construction had not
started, was a variance to allow an attached first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet rather
than the Code required 1,000 square feet for first accessory buildings. The total request was 8
square feet less than the maximum square footage of all accessory buildings allowed by code.
Both of the petitioners previous attempts to get the total square footage of the accessory
buildings over 1,400 square feet were denied due to a lack of hardship. The request to increase
the allowable square footage to 2,064 square feet was denied by the Appeals Commission due to
a lack of hardship. The revised request to increase the allowable square footage to 1,776 square
feet was then denied by the Council due to a lack of hardship.
To point out the differences in even simpler terms, the first request was for a 34' X 24' (816
square foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28' X 37' (1,036 square foot)
detached garage addition. With VAR #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings
was 1,392 square feet. With VAR #02-13, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is
proposed to be 1,612 sq. ft.. The granted variance was 8 square feet under the total allowed by
Code. The requested variance is 212 square feet more than allowed by Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends denial of this variance request.
• No similar variances to allow the square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400
square feet have been granted.
• Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship
• This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to
be 1,392 square feet)
STIPULATION
Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached.
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003.
3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation.
4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if
the property is a legitimate single family home.
5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled".
6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the
garage.
7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in accordance with
building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first
obtaining an additional variance.
8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto
adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City
Staff.
9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity
must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or
other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building
permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled".
10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage.
Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
August 8, 2002
City of Fridley - Planning Commission
Attn. Paul Bolin
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Bolin and Commission,
I am writing on behalf of my wife and myself concerning the proposed variance
for the property of Mr. James Kiewel at 1631 Rice Creek Rd. We are not in favor
of Mr. Kiewel's proposal for an additional 28'x 37' garage on his property.
We have another property between ours and Mr. Kiewel's but we are affected by
substantial runoff due to the lack of grass or landscaping on Mr. Kiewel's proper-
ty. We and our neighbors are downhill of Mr. Kiewel and suffer a great deal of
water and mud running through our back yards. We are in the natural flow path
but the situation is exacerbated by the fact that Mr. Kiewel's backyard is all
pavement and uncovered soil.
It also concerns us that the amount of storage and garage space on Mr. Kiewel's
lot is exceeding what is appropriate for a residential property within our commu-
nity. Three side-by-side sheds are visible from Rice Creek Road. And he has an
attached 2 car garage as well. With the addition of another 3 stall garage Mr.
Kiewel's property will seem more commercial than residential.
Thank you for your consideration.
James & Debra Wright
1691 Camelot Lane
Fridley, MN 55432
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION
TO:
Residents within 350 feet of 1631 Rice Creek Road
CASE NUMBER:
VAR #02-13
APPLICANT:
James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Petitioner or representative must be at meeting.
PURPOSE:
To increase the total square footage of accessory buildings
from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the
construction of an additional 28 foot by 37 foot garage
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY.
1631 Rice Creek Road
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
The East 145 feet and rear thereof of the South 190 feet
thereof of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22 (subject to
easement of record)
DATE AND TIME
Appeals Commission Meeting, Wednesday, August 14,
OF HEARING:
2002, at 7:30 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
HOW TO
1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTICIPATE:
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Paul Bolin,
Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E.,
Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 763-571-1287.
SPECIAL
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
ACCOMMODATION:
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500
no later than August 7, 2002. (TDD 763-572-3534)
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599
Mailing Date: August 2, 2002
rJAW
CfiYOE
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287
July 15, 2002
Mr. James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use
applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. Based on the
City's application schedule, we officially received an application for a variance on July
12, 2002. This letter serves to inform you that your variance application is complete.
Your Variance application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley
Appeals Commission Meeting on August 14, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers at 6431 University Avenue. Final action on your variance request will be
taken by the City of Fridley City Council at 7:30 P.M. on August 26, 2002.
In reviewing your site plan, staff noted that the new garage is not attached to the
existing garage. Therefore, the new garage is considered a second accessory building
and a special use permit must also be obtained prior to the issuance of a building
permit. For your convenience, a special use permit application and schedule have
been enclosed.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact
me at 572-3599.
Sincerely,
Paul Bolin
Planning Coordinator
PB
C-02-90
Z -/O - 0?
0
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 572-3592
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR:
`X Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs
PROPERTY INFORMATION: (site plan required or submittal, see attached)
Address: Z4 / / (' �e-e- X
Property Identification Number:_
Legal Description: Lot C Block Tract/Addition G{
-��
Current Zoning: R -1 Square Footage/acreage: . �' 4
Reason for Variance: n e
dt cec o a'" r. i ? e-- 666S
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No O If Yes, which City?
If Yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract chasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing.)
ADDRESS: c C,-f-41eke-� C4
DAYTIME PHONE: .0 SIGNATURE/DATE: C
6rEsrwrnar WdUumA- r3-
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME: f a // e
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE:
IV IV AINIVIVIV.V.1IV I VIY.V NfVIVAIIVIY/VIVV/VIV.VIVMM.VA/1V 1VM1V IV /V IVII.Y.YM.VIV IVIYIVIV/V.YIVIY/VA/.VII//.Y/.Y/Y/V IV/�I.VIVIV//1V/YIVIVMIVV MiV AVIV
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs:
Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: Receipt #: Received By
Application Number: JhW 667 13
Scheduled
3Scheduled A e mmission Date:
Sche City Council
1�Qay Application Complete No 'fica ate:
60 Day Date:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
SUBMISSION CHECKLIST
The following shall be the minimum submission requirements to the Appeals
Commission. Applications will not be accepted if the following is not submitted:
RESIDENTIAL:
ITEM
SUBMITTED
RECEIVER'S
COMPLETE
REVIEWER'S
INITIALS
INITIALS
Completed application, with fee
(Application is considered complete if
all blanks are completed, and both fee
owner
and petitioner have signed.)
Scaled site plan of property showing
north arrow, existing and proposed
structures, lot and block number,
adjacent street names, and buildings
on adjacent
lots within 10 feet of the common lot
lines.
Elevation of building and description of
materials.
Narrative of proposed building, and
summary of hardship.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL:
ITEM
SUBMITTED
RECEIVER'S
COMPLETE
REVIEWER'S
INITIALS
INITIALS
Completed application, with fee
(Application is considerecl.complete if
all blanks are completed, and both fee
owner and petitioner have signed.)
Scaled site plan of property showing
north arrow, existing and proposed
structures, lot and block number,
adjacent street names, and buildings
on adjacent lots within 10 feet of the
common lot lines.
Elevation of building and description of
materials.
Landscape plan for all projects
requiring a parking lot expansion of
four 4 or mores aces.
Grading and drainage plan.
Erosion control plan.
Calculations for stormwater runoff.
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
0 1651 CAMELOT LN
FRIDLEY, MN FRIDLEY, MN 55432
ORTH MCGLOR & PATRICIA CURRENT RESIDENT LECUYER R B R & GARCIA MARK
1651 CAMELO NE 1690 CAMELOT LN 1690 CAMEL LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 543 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, 32
CURRENT RESIDENT BENJAMIOQbERT O & DAWN M CURRENT RESIDENT
1670 CAMELOT LN 1670 CAM T LN NE 1660 CAMELOT LN
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLE 5432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
GHANI MIRZA LALA R CURRENT RESIDENT TURGEON AS A & NATALIE
1660 CAMELO N NE 1650 CAMELOT LN 1650 CAMEL LN NE
FRIDLEY, M 32 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, 32
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT MARTINSONkJVN C & JUDITH A
1691 CAMELOT LN 1640 CAMELOT LN 1640 CAMELXr LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, UN W32
CURRENT RESIDENT GRAHEK KEV,[Nji& KRISTINE E CURRENT RESIDENT
1680 CAMELOT LN 1680 CAMELOXIN NE 1621 RICE CREEK RD
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, M 2 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
WARGO AND J & SALLY J
CURRENT RESIDENT
VESCI TI THY J
1621 RICE CR RD NE
1619 RICE CREEK RD
1619 RI CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY, MN 32
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRID N 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
MEHTA LAT'ATH MAHENDRA
WRIGH ES A & DEBRA J
1613 RICE CREEK RD
1613 RICE CRD NE
W3,2!,
1691 C OT LN NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, M
FRIDL , M 55432
CURRENTR S ENT KIEWEL JAMES CURRENT RESIDENT
1631 RICE C EK RD 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE 1627 RICE CREEK RD
FRIDLEY, 5 32 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
SKOE % D CURRENT RESIDENT PHILLIPS I F
1627 RICE REEK RD NE 1632 RICE CREEK RD 1632 RIC REEK RD NE
FRIDLEY 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLE 55432
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
% ► N111111WX
ADDRESS
: 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
PIN
: 133024410006
LEGAL DESC
: UNAVAILABLE
: LOT BLOCK
PERMIT TYPE
: BUILDING
PROPERTY TYPE
: RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
: ROOFING
VALUATION
: $ 3,242.00
NOTE: UNDERLAYMENT AS PER STATE BUILDING CODE.
REROOF HOUSE & GARAGE (28 SQ) TEAR -OFF
APPLICANT
KIEWEL JAMES
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
OWNER
KIEWEL JAMES
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT
This permit becomes null and void if work or construction
authorized is not commenced witin 60 days or if construction
or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 120 days
at any time after work is commenced.
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this
application and know the same to be true and correct. All
provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of wort
will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The
granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to
violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law
regulating c traction Pr the of construction.
C
Applicant % w�s�s�v+T ,L, ar to �� 7 - d
Q►3wt%�! IJ.C.C. 9-207
Bldg Insp A N 9AIII Date
571-1287
PER,M�NO.: ` 2004-0059 1
DATE ISSUED: 04/27/2004
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
FIRE SURCHARGE
STATE SURCHARGE, VALUE
TOTAL
SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE.
97.25
3.24
1.62
102.11
NEW [ ] CITY OF FRIDLEY Effective 4/1/2004
ADDN [ ] 6431 University Ave NE, Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3604 Bldg Insp
ALTER [ ] SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2 (763) 571-1287 Fax
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION -Ab
IM
Construction Address: / Ae✓ C C -
Legal Description:
Owner Name & Address:
La
Tel. # 5'�7 V ---J L 6
Contractor. S C- I /-' MN LICENSE #
Address:
S,4,41 .e Tel. #
Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the
lot, with the proposed construction drawn on it to scale.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT
LMNGAAREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft.
GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft.
DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft
OTHER: —
v
Construction Type: � � � � � Estimated Cost: $ r
Driveway Curb Cut Width Needed: Ft + 6 Ft = Ft x $ =b 'Z r,cc•_ $
�
AU- Pk
rsi:sR"?"ia ty ani
PASL .1-2G7 U.C.C.1
DATE:` Z 7� �/ APPLICANT: 2 Tel.MY
Call (763) 572-3604 for Permit Fees if Zring in application. Fax to 763 using credit card and we will call
you for card number.
CITY USE ONLY -
Permit Fee
Plan Review
Fire Surcharge
State Surcharge
SAC Charge
License Surcharge
Curb Cut Escrow
Erosion Control
Park Fee
Sewer Main Charge
Fee Schedule on Reverse Side
65% of Permit Fee
.001 of Permit Valuation (1/10th%)
$.50/$1,000 Valuation
$1350 per SAC Unit
$5.00 (State Licensed Residential Contractors)
Alt. "A" or Alt. "B" Above
$450.00 Conservation Plan Review
Fee Determined by Engineering
Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary [
TOTAL $ l 0--� I /� STIPULATIONS: