VAR 99-11DATE:
TO:
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
July 14, 1999
Mechell Turok, Accounting/Data Processing Clerk
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: VAR #99-11
Julie & Ben Streitz, 990 Rice Creek Terrace, recently applied for a variance, VAR #99-
11. After reviewing the request, staff has determined that a variance is not necessary.
Please refund the $60 variance application fee to Julie & Ben Streitz, 990 Rice Creek
Terrace, Fridley, MN, 55432. Thanks!
rJAN
UNOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
July 15, 1999
Julie & Ben Streitz
990 Rice Creek Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
RE: Variance #99-11
Dear Ben and Julie:
Thank you for your patience and cooperation as we worked through the building
permit, variance process. Ben as you and I discussed earlier this week, a hold
harmless is necessary, but once completed, this document only requires an
administrative review rather than the series of meetings associated with the
variance.
I was pleased to see that your survey revealed that the dog house and kennel
were within the setbacks required by City Ordinance.
Thanks again for your cooperation and please let me know if the City can
provide assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
CITY 9F FRIDLEY
XV
S�ott J. Hickok
Planning Coordinator
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY. MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
` Ben Streitz -
Director of Special Markets
I
PHEASANTS FOREVER, INC.
1783 Buerkle Circle
White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 l(651) 773-5500
00
Web Site: wwwpheasantsforever.org E-mail: pf@pheasatf.mver.org
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR:
Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs
: - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: qy® MICE CKet:-X- I LKK -C
Property Identification Number
Legal Description: Lot Block 3 Ti-actiAddition '66or- f1f-Wt E�
2ND A-bb)r T oN .
Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: gvlj114</ 00 -� ''x/ �)
Reason for Variance: _ 4,5 r er. A -t- r4,r tf r-,,
r�
Have you operated a business in a city which required a, business license?
Yes No ) /7 If Yes, which city?
If Yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
-.....wr.........-...r+n..�..�...rr.�..�.war•..�..�..�r...rn..�.r.r.�.�.r..r.�r.�.�..�..rr.�r�sauo�.w'+wr�. i►.�.r.....swr.i.n.
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME: J R L I E AND E�
ADDRESS: ®110 9IC.E CP-� - n
DAYTIME PHONE: WA -5'-r -1010 I SIGNATURE/DATE:, ,j
NAME: WC- X f1V iVe7TZ-
ADDRESS: 6710 9/ce-1C9 f/17
DAYTIME PHONE: 04 19 -1201 SIGNATURE/DATE:�, 'O
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs:
4Fee: $60.00 for residential pro erties: Receipt #: Received By:
Application Number.
Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: 7- Xk - /j
Scheduled City Council Date: 9- 7-l9
10 Day Application Complete Notification Date:
60 Day Date: '�?s 3v --9 9
City of Fridley Land Use
Application Process
60 Day Agency Action Law
Application Date Planning Commission Meeting
60 Day Window Starts Recommendation to Council
i
1
1
i
e
1
1
1
e
Submit Complete
Application and
Materials
3
f
i 1 1
21-40 Days t
1
1
Application Complete
10 Day Notice 1
1
1
e
`Public Hearings:
.Variance
Vacations
Lot Splits
'Plats
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
Wetland Replacements
Comprehensive Plan
Special Use Permits
City Council Decision
Approval or Denial
50-60 Days
Approved, Action Taken Letter
I
1
1
Tabled, 60 More Days
1
i
1 Denied
i
1
e
Public Hearings:
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
4
I
Ben and Julie Streitz
990 Rice Creek Terrace
Fridley, Mn 55432
Phone: 612-572-1901
June] 29, 1999
i
To the Appeals Commission:
We are applying for a variance for undue hardship The need for the variance is due to the
conditions unique to the property and not created �y actions of us the landowners. The
shed/kennel was built on our land but ended up being on part of the easement due to
property conditions. In order to bring the shed/ke6nel inward off the easement a major
evergreen tree and two large perennial gardens would have to have been moved. Being
that this is a shed/kennel the placement had to concern the dogs welfare --protection from
the sun is needed from the tree. This placement allows the owners to easily monitor the
dogs behavior from the house ie, in case of barkin for the least amount of bother to the
neighbors. The size of shed/kennel was determine by the amount of space each dog
needs --minimum 6x10 feet per dog. This was ascertained by polling professional dog
handlers/trainers.
The variance if granted will not alter the character c f the neighborhood. There are many
similar out buildings placed in yards up and down from us. The neighbors directly
surrounding the shed/kennel agree with the placem t of the shed/kennel as demonstrated
by their signed statements.
I
This time he is included because we (the owners)ere under the impression that
everything was okay due to the verbal go ahead of t e building inspector. hater, after we
were almost finished and the same inspector came back then he told us we had a problem.
Our frustration is in that there was a whole week br4ak in the work that would have been
easier to do something about the problem but there Was no word from the city inspector.
I
6/2/99 --Work on the building of the shed/kennel be City Building Inspector --Barry
Riesch -stopped by and viewed the site. The slab w s already laid; the framing was just
beginning. Barry asked if the frame was bolted do .. The builder (Ron) answered yes.
Ron asked Barry if he could continue building? Bar stated " yes, theylhave to get a
permit." Nothing was said at this time regarding placement of the shed.
6/3/99 --Owner went to apply for a permit. The clerl told the owner of the six foot
easement. Owner explained that Barry was there yes�erday and said everything was OIC.
Clerk stated that Barry would have to check off on itJ and he was out of town both
Thursday and Friday --6/4 and 6/5.
II
i
6/7/99 --Owner returned to city offices today (Monday) because Barry, the ins r- 'Was
back in town. The permit application, a drawing of proposed structure and a copy of plot
map with the shed/kennel marked on it including distance in feet from lot lines was left for
Barry's approval. The distance from the lot lines was 6+ feet on the south side and 3 feet
on the west side. Barry was telephoned later this day by owner (Ben) to have electrical
service added to the permit. Barry stated the permit was not ready yet.
6/7 -6/11/99 --Work had ceased on the shed/kennel this week. There was no word from
the city regarding the permit this whole time
6/16/99 --Owner called Barry to check on status of the permit --Barry stated it was ready.
There was no word previously. Work resumed.
6/18/99 --Permit was purchased and the inspection scheduled. Barry R. did the inspection-
-at this time he stated there was a problem with the easement. When questioned regarding
why nothing was said when he was here the first time he stated "Yes, I guess I should
have looked closer the first time." He also stated we needed to add wall ties four feet
apart --this was done.
Enclosed is the paperwork specific to the application of a variance and signed statements
from the neighbors whose yards butt up to the corner of our lot on which the shed/kennel
is placed. We have sent pictures of our yard to demonstrate why this placement was
chosen. Thank -you for considering all our information.
Sincerely,
i
Ben and Julie Streitz