VAR 98-16STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF FRIDLEY
In the Matter of: a variance, VAR #98-16
Owner: Stephen G. Filer and Janice L. Filer
APPEALS COMMISSION
PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE
The above entitled matter came before the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley and was heard on the
27th day of May, 1998, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the
following described property:
To reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 13 feet to allow the
construction of a three -season porch on Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater Gardens,
generally located at 10 Rice Creek Way N.E.
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons:
Approved with one stipulation. See Appeals Commission minutes dated
May 27, 1998.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that
have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a variance with the original record thereof preserved in
my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, h e hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the
County of Anoka on the day of `�� , 19.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within
that period.
A,
til
Debra A. Skogen, City Cie
`y.,(SEAL)
IWT, a
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within
that period.
Mr. Miller stated he thought the bump -out would break up the wall and provide more room
inside. They have a hedge there s do the neighbors.
Dr. Vos stated the bump -out takes p 10 feet of the 16 foot addition. From Second Street
looking west, you will see three fee of the addition and then the bump -out so that will
break up the long look of the buildin There is also a fairly large tree in the front.
Mr. Miller stated that in the summer, of
large trees.
Dr. Vos asked if the neighbor to the n r
Mr. Miller stated, yes.
Dr. Vos stated there is 14 feet betwee
between two garages.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING)
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PU
can hardly see the house. They have two fairly
was also set back 7 feet.
the two structures which is two feet more than
, to close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
HEARING CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated the advantage for the petiti ner is taking the existing structure and going
straight back. The lot is small even with 1 1/2 lots. He did not see any other place to put
an addition. He thought it met the spirit of he hardship. He did not know what to say
about the length. He would vote for appro al with the stipulation.
Ms. Mau concurred. She did not see a pro lem. She agreed that it is a very long wall,
but it is true there are not a lot of options for the placement of an addition.
Mr. Jones agreed the wall is long but there iA not much place to go. With the stipulation
for the garage to meet the fire codes, he would be in favor of the request.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Maq, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #98-12, by Greg R. Miller, to repuce the side yard setback from 10 feet to
7 feet to allow a 16 foot building addition on L5, and the north 1/2 of Lot 6, Block 12,
Plymouth Addition, generally located at 4540 -jnd Street, with the following stipulation:
1. The petitioner shall comply with
Building Code for the addition a
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
fire code requirements of the Uniform
the existing garage.
RPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98-16.
BY STEPHEN FILER:
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 31.25 feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season
porch on Lot 1 „ Block 2, Edgewater Gardens, generally located at 10 Rice Creek
Way.
PPEALS COMMISSION _MEETING. _MAY 27. 98 __-PAGE-4
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:54 P.M.
Mr. Tatting stated the request is to allow a reduction of the rear yard setback from 31.25
feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch, 15 feet x 13 feet, at 10
Rice Creek Way. The property is a comer lot with frontage on Rice Creek Way and
Ashton Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1
zoning. Locke Park is to the north. The railroad right-of-way is to the east.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioners' hardship statement states the dwelling is 28 feet from
the rear lot line; is on a comer lot with two "fronts"; and is 10 feet from the west lot line. If
the porch was placed to the north, it would need to be placed off and accessed through
the garage. To the east of the house is a 12 -foot wide chimney and second story
window. There is only 10 feet to the west so to the back is the only option.
Mr. Tatting stated the zoning code indicates that the rear yard shall not be less than 25%
of the lot depth. The minimum rear setback is 25 feet and the maximum rear setback is
40 feet. The lot depth of the subject parcel is 125 feet for a rear yard setback of 31.25
feet.
Mr. Tatting stated the lot coverage for the house, garage, proposed porch and proposed
gazebo would be 21.7% or 2,321 square feet which is within the 25% maximum allowed.
Maximum rear yard coverage allowed by code is 35%. The proposed porch and
proposed gazebo would result in 24.5% rear yard coverage which is within the maximum
allowed.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioner has considered other locations. To the north in front of
the house is a curved concrete driveway. A porch in this location would conflict with the
driveway. To the east is a large chimney so they could not extend a porch to that side.
The garage is also close to the setback. To the west, the side yard is only 10 feet wide.
The proposed location is to the south where the yard depth is 30 feet. A brick patio exists
in this area and also landscape rock. The proposed porch would be placed where the
patio currently exists so there would be little change in the drainage pattern.
Mr. Tatting stated two comparable variances have been granted in the past; therefore,
staff has no recommendation regarding this request.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioners did talk to their neighbors and have a letter from them
stating they are not in opposition to this request.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the gazebo was in compliance.
Mr. Tatting stated yes, it is within the requirements.
Mr. Filer stated he wanted to thank staff for showing a high degree of customer service
and for making this a very worthwhile process. He wanted to reiterate the viability of the
location as the biggest problem. They looked at putting the porch in several places and it
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 27 1998 PAGE. -5
did not work. The location on the southwest comer of the back they felt would be the
least obtrusive. They have talked to the neighbors who lived where they might see the
porch, and they are okay with it. The signatures are from those on adjacent lots as far as
the setbacks.
Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner was building a deck and a three -season porch.
Mr. Filer stated what they had actually decided to do patio bricks instead of the deck.
Dr. Vos asked if the only variance needed was for the three -season porch:
Mr. Tatting stated this is correct.
Mr. Kuechle stated one of the things he thinks about is the visual impact. What is the
petitioner doing to make this sure this addition blends in with the rest of the house?
Mr. Filer stated they will use the same siding, paint, windows and doors. It will look like
part of the house. They tried to be very cognizant of that. They want to get along with
their neighbors so they talked with them.
MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M.
Ms. Mau stated she thought the petitioners have tried to make this blend in and the
hardship is being met by not having any other areas where they can expand. She would
vote in favor of the request.
Mr. Jones stated the petitioners have thought through the options by themselves. With
the help of city staff, they have taken into consideration their neighbors and the lot
coverage. He would vote in favor of the request.
Mr. Kuechle concurred. He would add a stipulation that the addition be architecturally
compatible with the existing structure. This does not appear to be a problem but it makes
the statement that this is the way the commission wants to see this go.
Dr. Vos asked what the petitioner could build without a variance.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioner cannot build without a variance.
Mr. Filer stated a variance was granted when the house was constructed to the setback
the way it was.
Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner had any options.
Mr. Tatting stated, no.
Dr. Vos stated he would then vote in favor of the request.
• I >,rA&*4 Eel ► >, u _ •
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #98-16, by Stephen Filer, to reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet
to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch on Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater
Gardens, generally located at 10 Rice Creek Way, with the following stipulation:
1. The new construction shall be architecturally compatible with the existing
structure.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Mr. Tatting stated the vision workshop meetings will be held May 28 and June 25 at 7:00
p.m. at the Community Cent r gymnasium. The public and Commission members are
invited to attend.
4.
Mr. Tatting provided an update o Planning Commission and City Council actions.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by . Jones, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING YE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE M Y 27,1998, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
ABSTRACT
Receipt # /09 q. %
❑ Certified Copy
Date/Time: 3 / 11.00
Date Mailed
Doc. Order �_ of
® Tax Liens / Releases
_
® Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd
r/ by: Pins:
❑ Transfer ❑ New Desc.
Recordability / Delgs:
^ �y�^
Filing Fees: Y "1
® Division ❑ GAC
Well Certificate
❑ Status ❑ Def. Spec
Received this Date:
Anoka County Recorder
® Other No Change
Notes:
DOCUMENT N0. 1412918.0 ABSTRACT
ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE
FOR RECORD ON MAR 05 1999
AT 5:00 PM AN WAS DULY RECORDED.
FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF 19.50 PAID.
RECEIPT NO. 1999031091
EDWARD M. TRESKA
ANOKA COUNTYPROPERTY TAX ADMINIS7RATORIRECORDERIREGISTR4R OF TITLES
JAE
BY
DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Stephen G. Filer
10 Rice Creek Way
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Filer:
May 28, 1998
On May 27, 1998, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for
a variance, VAR #98-16, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 13
feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch on Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater
Gardens, generally located at 10 Rice Creek Way.
You have one year from the date of the Appeals Commission action to initiate
construction. If you cannot begin construction during this time, you must submit a letter
requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3593.
Sincerely,
Paul Tatting
Planning Assistant
PT:ls
Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley
Planning Department by June 12, 1998.
L(
one ith 2ction taken.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 27 1998 PAGE -3
Mr. Miller stated he thought the bump -out %ould break up the wall and provide more room
inside. They have a hedge there as do the neighbors.
Dr. Vos stated the bump -out takes up 10 fe t of the 16 foot addition. From Second Street
looking west, you will see three feet of the a dition and then the bump -out so that will
break up the long look of the building. Thero is also a fairly large tree in the front.
Mr. Miller stated that in the summer, you can�hardly see the house. They have two fairly
large trees.
Dr. Vos asked if the neighbor to the north
Mr. Miller stated, yes.
Dr. Vos stated there is 14 feet between the
between two garages.
also set back 7 feet.
structures which is two feet more than
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, t§ close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HARING CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated the advantage for the petitioner is taking the existing structure and going
straight back. The lot is small even with 1 1/2 lot4. He did not see any other place to put
an addition. He thought it met the spirit of the ha dship. He did not know what to say
about the length. He would vote for approval wit the stipulation.
Ms. Mau concurred. She did not see a problem. he agreed that itis a very long wall,
but it is true there are not a lot of options for the pl cement of an addition.
Mr. Jones agreed the wall is long but there is not njuch place to go. With the stipulation
for the garage to meet the fire codes, he would be io favor of the request.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Mau, to rcommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #98-12, by Greg R. Miller, to reduce he side yard setback from 10 feet to
7 feet to allow a 16 foot building addition on Lot 5, a d the north 1/2 of Lot 6, Block 12,
Plymouth Addition, generally located at 4540 - 2nd treet, with the following stipulation:
The petitioner shall comply with the fire code requirements of the Uniform
Building Code for the addition and the 4xisting garage.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
BY STEPHEN FILER:`
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 31.25 feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season
porch on Lot 1 „ Block 2, Edgewater Gardens, generally located at 10 Rice Creek
Way.
PPEALS COMMI SION MEETING. MAY 27. 1998 PAGE 4
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:54 P.M.
Mr. Tatting stated the request is to allow a reduction of the rear yard setback from 31.25
feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch, 15 feet x 13 feet, at 10
Rice Creek Way. The property is a comer lot with frontage on Rice Creek Way and
Ashton Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1
zoning. Locke Park is to the north. The railroad right-of-way is to the east.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioners' hardship statement states the dwelling is 28 feet from
the rear lot line; is on a comer lot with two "fronts"; and is 10 feet from the west lot line. If
the porch was placed to the north, it would need to be placed off and accessed through
the garage. To the east of the house is a 12 -foot wide chimney and second story
window. There is only 10 feet to the west so to the back is the only option.
Mr. Tatting stated the zoning code indicates that the rear yard shall not be -less than 25%
of the lot depth. The minimum rear setback is 25 feet and the maximum rear setback is
40 feet. The lot depth of the subject parcel is 125 feet fora rear yard setback of 31.25
feet.
Mr. Tatting stated the lot coverage for the house, garage, proposed porch and proposed
gazebo would be 21.7% or 2,321 square feet which is within the 25% maximum allowed.
Maximum rear yard coverage allowed by code is 35%. The proposed porch and
proposed gazebo would result in 24.5% rear yard coverage which is within the maximum
allowed.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioner has considered other locations. To the north in front of
the house is a curved concrete driveway. A porch in this location would conflict with the
driveway. To the east is a large chimney so they could not extend a porch to that side.
The garage is also close to the setback. To the west, the side yard is only 10 feet wide.
The proposed location is to the south where the yard depth is 30 feet. A brick patio exists
in this area and also landscape rock. The proposed porch would be placed where the
patio currently exists so there would be little change in the drainage pattern.
Mr. Tatting stated two comparable variances have been granted in the past; therefore,
staff has no recommendation regarding this request.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioners did talk to their neighbors and have a letter from them
stating they are not in opposition to this request.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the gazebo was in compliance.
Mr. Tatting stated yes, it is within the requirements.
Mr. Filer stated he wanted to thank staff for showing a high degree of customer service
and for making this a very worthwhile process. He wanted to reiterate the viability of the
location as the biggest problem. They looked at putting the porch in several places and it
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 27 1998 PAGE -5
did not work. The location on the southwest comer of the back they felt would be the
least obtrusive. They have talked to the neighbors who lived where they might see the
porch, and they are okay with it. The signatures are from those on adjacent lots as far as
the setbacks.
Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner was building a deck and a three -season porch.
Mr. Filer stated what they had actually decided to do patio bricks instead of the deck.
Dr. Vos asked if the only variance needed was for the three -season porch.
Mr. Tatting stated this is correct.
Mr. Kuechle stated one of the things he thinks about is the visual impact. What is the
petitioner doing to make this sure this addition blends in with the rest of the house?
Mr. Filer stated they will use the same siding, paint, windows and doors. It will look like
part of the house. They tried to be very cognizant of that. They want to get along with
their neighbors so they talked with them.
MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M.
Ms. Mau stated she thought the petitioners have tried to make this blend in and the
hardship is being met by not having any other areas where they can expand. She would
vote in favor of the request.
Mr. Jones stated the petitioners have thought through the options by themselves. With
the help of city staff, they have taken into consideration their neighbors and the lot
coverage. He would vote in favor of the request.
Mr. Kuechle concurred. He would add a stipulation that the addition be architecturally
compatible with the existing structure. This does not appear to be a problem but it makes
the statement that this is the way the commission wants to see this go.
Dr. Vos asked what the petitioner could build without a variance.
Mr. Tatting stated the petitioner cannot build without a variance.
Mr. Filer stated a variance was granted when the house was constructed to the setback
the way it was.
Dr. Vos asked if the petitioner had any options.
Mr. Tatting stated, no.
Dr. Vos stated he would then vote in favor of the request.
L 11111111M
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #98-16, by Stephen Filer, to reduce the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet
to 13 feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch on Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater
Gardens, generally located at 10 Rice Creek Way, with the following stipulation:
1. The new construction shall be architecturally compatible with the existing
structure.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. VISION MEETINGS:
Mr. Tatting stated the vision workshop meetings will be held May 28 and June 25 at 7:00
p.m. at the Community Center gymnasium. The public and Commission members are
invited to attend.
4. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Mr. Tatting provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 27,1998, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
Variance from Rear Yard Setback, 10 Rice Creek Way NE
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Stephen and Janice Filer are requesting a variance to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback
from 31.25 feet to 13 feet. The variance will allow the petitioner to build a three season porch, 15
feet by 13 feet wide to the rear of their existing house. The Filer property is a comer lot located at
10 Rice Creek Way.
HARDSHIP STATEMENT:
As we look at adding a three -season porch and deck to the back of our home, there are several
factors that caused us to need a variance in order to do so: 1) Our home sets 28 feet from the rear
of the lot, 2) Our home sets on a corner lot and is considered to hove two fronts, ' 3) Our home
sets 10 feet from the west lot line, 4) Our floor plan is not conducive to locating the three -season
porch anywhere but off the back of the home.
As we looked at where would be the best place to add a three -season porch, the north and east side
of the home (the two fronts ) were the only locations that did not require a variance. However, 1)
the north side (main front) is not a viable location since the porch and deck would need to be built
off of, and accessed through, the garage, 2) the east side of the house (the other front) is not viable
due to the location of a 12 foot wide chimney. The position of the chimney permits a porch width
of only seven feet. Additionally, the position of the chimney and the location of a second story
window severly restrict the position and pitch of the roof.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Section 205.07.03.D.(3a) indicates that the rear yard is to be not less than 25% of the lot depth.
The minimum rear setback is 25 feet and the maximum rear setback is 40 feet. The public purpose
served by the rear yard setback is that it is space to be used for green areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
PREVIOUS COMPARABLE VARIANCES GRANTED:
Two comparable variances are indicated in the analysis portion of this report.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff has no recommendation due that the fact that this request is within a previously granted
dimension.
Staff Report: VAR #98-16
10 Rice Creek Way NE
Page 2
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For: A variance to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 13
feet. The variance will allow the petitioner to build a three season porch, 15 feet
by 13 feet wide to the rear of their existing house.
Location
of Property:
10 Rice Creek Way NE
Legal Description
of Property:
Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater Gardens
Lot Size:
Approximately 10,750 square feet
Topography:
Fairly flat
Existing
Vegetation:
Typical suburban; trees, shrubs, grass
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
R-1, Single Family
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Connected
Vehicular
Access: Rice Creek Way & Ashton Avenue
Pedestrian
Access: Rice Creek Way & Ashton Avenue
Site Planning
Issues: Rear Yard Setback
Comprehensive
Planning Issues: Zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this area.
Public Hearing
Comments: To be taken; letter of support from neighbors.
2
Staff Report: VAR #98-16
10 Rice Creek Way NE
Page 3
DEVELOPMENT SITE
Stephen and Janice Filer are requesting a variance to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback
from 31.25 feet to 13 feet. The variance will allow the petitioner to build a three season porch, 15
feet by 13 feet wide to the rear of their existing house. The Filer property is a corner lot located at
10 Rice Creek Way.
The Filer property is located at the intersection of Rice Creek Way and Ashton Avenue. The house
faces Rice Creek Way to the north. The garage accesses Rice Creek Way, but faces to the west. Locke
Lake is to their north and a portion of Locke Lake Park is to their northeast. The house and garage
were built in 1968. The house is 46 ft by 28 feet and the garage is 24 feet by 30 feet. A building
permit was issued in 1996 for reroofing the house and garage.
ADJACENT SITES
North: Zoning: R-1, Single Family
East: Zoning: R-1, Single Family
South: Zoning: R-1, Single Family
West Zoning: R-1, Single Family
ANALYSIS
Land Use: Single family homes, Locke Lake Park
Land Use: Single family homes
Land Use: Single family homes
Land Use: Single family homes
Section 205.07.03.D.(3a) indicates that the rear yard is to be not less than 25% of the lot depth. The
minimum rear setback is 25 feet and the maximum rear setback is 40 feet. The public purpose
served by the rear yard setback is that it is space to be used for green areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
The existing house and garage are 2,000 square feet in size. The proposed porch is 195 square feet and
a proposed gazebo is 126 square feet. The total area of the buildings is 2,321 square feet which is
21.7% of the lot.
The maximum lot coverage is 25%. Maximum coverage of the rear yard area by structures is 35%; the
proposed buildings and deck will cover 24.5% of the rear yard, thus meeting the requirement.
Staff Report: VAR #98-16
10 Rice Creek Way NE
Page 4
Other Locations for Porch
NORTH - In front of the house is the cement driveway. An addition would conflict with the driveway
and parking area for the house.
EAST- A large chimney exists on the side of the house and the garage is near the required setback
distance of 17.5 feet. An addition does not seem very feasible in this area.
SOUTH (proposed) - The rear yard is small, but has a brick patio area. The porch would be placed in
the existing patio area. No trees would need to be removed for the proposed addition to the house.
WEST - The west side yard is only 10 feet wide. It is too narrow for a building addition.
The west and south property lines are fenced. Being that the proposed area for the porch is already a
brick patio, drainage from the site will change little.
This request is similar to a previously granted variances for:
Justin Droessler -.8141 Riverview Terrace (1992) - Rear Yard Setback reduced to 8 ii for expansion of
an existing attached garage.
Richard Hudrlik - 5502 Regis Trail (1991) - Rear Yard Setback reduced to 10 feet for a building
addition.
Staff has no recommendation due to the fact that this request is within a previously granted dimension.
4
Z�
J.'e.�O�u��� (z�'1C{�i`�111��.1��tiSs i, Utl�.
LAND SURVEYORS
10130 HIGHWAY 65 NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55433 Telephone
784-5480
Certificate of Survey- Uorilla Christenson
� j '- '-
-
i 30 10
syr
0
VA - , . F -i —,
Z 4:--
0
N
11
wy
---------- ---
;\ I
I I
Maj
c5'�
�- � � .� � � �, � ' a--t-
0
cmroF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287
May 12, 1998
Stephen Filer
10 Rice Creek Way
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Filer:
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. We received an
application for a rear yard setback variance on May 1, 1998. This letter serves to
inform you that your application is complete and that the City of Fridley will be
processing your application in accordance with Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code.
Your application schedule is as follows:
Appeals Commission May 27, 1998
City Council June 8, 1998
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact
me at 572-3593.
Sincerely,
Paul Tatting
Planning Assistant
PTAs
C-98-78
5/2/98
To Fridley City Council
RE: Variance Request for Steve and Jan Filer, 10 Rice Creek Way
The Filers have shared with us their desire to add a 3 season porch to their home at 10 Rice
Creek Way. We understand that due to the situation of their home on their property line that this
will require a variance for the setback requirements for the rear property line.
As adjoining property owners to 10 Rice Creek Way, we support the Filers' request to the
Fridley City Council for the variance so they may add the 15' x 13' 3 season porch to the
southwest corner of their home.
Bob & Diane Graham, 17 Aal W
Jim & Jenny McGillicuddy, 11
Jim & Joy Glaser, 16 Rice Creek Wa
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR:
Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs
PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: /0 RICA- Ai z3
Property Identification Number. D®
Legal Description: Lot / Block .2 Tract/Addition
Current Zoning: JQ Square footage/acreage: to,W.-P+.
Reason for Variance: " i n Q 3 Seacm 'eh
Have you operate_ d a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No X If Yes, which city?
If Yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
r.V�14ti.V.Vti.Vti.VMwWVYVNtiAIVti^/•V.V.VAI4V1V.VYI,VWIV.V.V•V/ViY.V ^IMVAMVtiVtiiYIV.VVi►r.VNA•V
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE:
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME: -r;
ADDRESS: /D LOWAAj fridkeu Mk)
DAYTIME PHONE: 9qa-qa24 SIGNATU E/DATE• w,�r.�, -
.•rtiwrwr.+rr..v�r.ver..rw•..wr.vw•.�r�r..�rww�rtiwi.r..�r�r.r�r..�rwr.v�r�r.r�rw..rwr•►rrrr�rti .wrwr.r�r�.wl�r�r�r�rw,
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee:$100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: �+
Fee: 0. or residenti l properties: _ Receipt #: Received By �f �1
Appli n Number. V R
Scheduledeals Commission Date: 1 "S -APP 1 �� � <<
Scheduled City Council Date: 1A
10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: /t,,i E F.a F '
60 Day Date: Jane. 30, 1895
City of Fridley Land Use.
Application Process
City Council Decision
Approval or Denial
50-60 Days
Approved, A�cfionaken Letter
t
Tabled, 60 More Days
� Denied
Public Hearings:
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
60 Day Agency Action Law
Application Date
Planning Commission Meeting
60 Day Window Starts
Recommendation to Council
21-40 Days
Application Complete
10 Day Notice
Submit Complete
Public Hearings:
Application and
Variance
Materials
Vacations
Lot Splits
Plats
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
Wetland Replacements
Comprehensive Plan
Special Use Permits
City Council Decision
Approval or Denial
50-60 Days
Approved, A�cfionaken Letter
t
Tabled, 60 More Days
� Denied
Public Hearings:
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
Narrative
When our home was built in 1968 the structure was situated further back from the main front street than
most homes usually are built. This created a distance of only 28' between the rear of the house and the
rear property line. Considering the design of the home, this probably seemed like the appropriate thing to
do at the time. Now, however, rear setback requirements of 25 feet make it difficult to add on to the rear
of the home without first obtaining a variance.
We have recently been considering a move outside of the Fridley area. We love Fridley ... the school
system, our neighborhood and so many other things that make this a great place to live! We also love our
home. But we need a 3 -season porch to fully enjoy our fabulous location without being attacked by
mosquitoes. We have consistently made improvements to our home to maintain its structural integrity
and to continue to enhance its market value. It is important to us, and we hope to the Fridley City
Council, that an addition of a 3 -season porch to our home will be an enhancement to the property, and
improve its appearance, functionality, and market value -- not deter it. We do not want the placement of
a 3 -season porch to be functionally obsolete before it is even constructed.
As we look at adding a three -season porch and deck to the back of our home, there are several factors that
cause us to need a variance in order to do so.
• Our home sets 28 feet from the rear of the lot.
• Our home sets on a corner lot and is considered to have two `fronts'.
• Our home sets 10 feet from the west lot line.
• Our floor plan is not conducive to locating the three -season porch anywhere but off the back of
the home.
As we looked at where would be the best place to add a three -season porch, the north and east side of the
home (the two `fronts') were the only locations that did not require a variance. However:
• The north side (main "front") is not a viable location since the porch and deck would need to be
built off of, and accessed through, the garage (not to mention how outrageous it would look!)
• The east side of the house (the "other" front) is not viable due to the location of a 12 -foot wide
chimney. The position of the chimney permits a porch width of only seven feet. Additionally,
the position of the chimney and the location of a second story window severely restrict the
position and pitch of the roof.
The west side of the home sets 10 feet from the property line. This is not a viable location for the deck
and porch, as it does not permit for significant expansion.
As the north, east and west sides of the home do not appear to be viable options for the location of a deck
and three -season porch, we must shift attention to the south (rear) side of our home. This location is the
most feasible based on the restrictions noted for the other three sides of the home.
Asking for a variance, which would permit us to build a porch with a rear setback of 13 feet, would not
create a hardship on any party, nor is it an `exorbitant' thing to do. We have obtained signatures from all
neighbors, who have property which adjoins ours, stating that they support our request for a variance.
Based on this information, we request that the city of Fridley grant us a setback variance for the rear of
our property.
Thank you for your serious consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
-A 2P
Stephen G. Filer
le S
0
Janice L. Filer
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION
TO:
Property owners within 350 feet of 10 Rice Creek Way
CASE NUMBER:
VAR #98-16
APPLICANT:
Stephen Filer
PURPOSE:
To reduce the required rear yard setback from 31.25 feet to 13
feet to allow the construction of a three -season porch
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY.
10 Rice Creek Way
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 1, Block 2, Edgewater Gardens
DATE AND TIME OF
Appeals Commission Meeting:
HEARING:
Wednesday, May 27, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night
of the meeting on Channel 35.
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers,
6431 University Avenue
HOW TO
1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTICIPATE:
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok,
Planning Coordinator, or Paul Tatting, at 6431 University
Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432, or fax at 571-1287.
SPECIAL
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
ACCOMMODATIONS:
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no
later than May 20, 1998.
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599,
or Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593.
Mailing Date: May 15, 1998
STEPHEN FILER DALE & MARGARET OWENS CHARLES & FLORENCE TURBAK
10 RICE CREEK WAY 17 RICE CREEK WAY 23 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
GLORIA MAGNESS
29 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
DONALD & ELAINE FLEIGLE
25 67TH WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
DAVID & JOAN ALLEN
33 66 %Z AVE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
11 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
PHYLLIS HEUTMAKER
35 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
BARBARA HAMER
41 66 %Z WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
KENNARD LITTLER
41 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
LARS & ANNA ANDERSON
6696 ASHTON AVE NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
ANTONIA & TERESA CAMARILLO CURRENT RESIDENT
6673 ASHTON AVE NE 15 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
ll�
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
6725 ASHTON AVE 35 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
22 RICE CREEK WAY
16 RICE CREEK WAY
6715 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
41 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
17 67'x' WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
35 67TH WAY NE 6709 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
47 RICE CREEK WAY 11 67TH WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
6705 ASHTON AVE
53 RICE CREEK WAY
40 RICE CREEK WAY
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
6701 ASHTON AVE 32 67TH WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
16 67TH WAY NE
6699 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
58 RICE CREEK WAY 41 66 %z WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
25 66 %2 WAY NE 17 66 %2 WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6673 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
24 67TH WAY NE
FRIDLEY AN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6696 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
6685 ASHTON AVE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
11 66 %a WAY NE
FRIDLEY MN 55432
F,
� 111
®�,•®
moll
MM MM
INS \■
1*4240
��®♦♦ ( i
r ®� �► ♦ �'`
wry
/� �,e► ®� lir, ..
•
1� ��
r► L�
■ ■1111®®
�� . 1111111■1
.■ ®. -r� will■
.
`® � I� ® a'
✓ �I/������ OdU1������ iiii iiii �
MEN
loll
all
Vmiawe, VV #98-16
r.- 3�q*n Filer
/ RiceCreek
■
Red/ eff
Setback
3
*wl a1.8u1S -,I -y : gRluoz
91-96# YVA `aau"-WA
-Olid uaydaly :-auoz zad
)PPMOS PMAM2i WO -U MWWA
Naw 9_
WMMI 00qnd - d
Pul kasFi SWI momno - m EM
P.4awl kag4 - a -w o
m4wipumAn vw a
eowo Fmaj, -w-
,,- m o
SMP U Fjouse - �� o
AFM, -Vo
PPPK3 zs o
pompoqLARN VS o
wau&ea wn d - and D
qJudamHGPM -"0
qlLn £moo
,4us,OML- &H a
R,Mulmso- vu D
MW&lwz
AeM vejo cord 0