VAR 96-02STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ,ITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
VARIANCE
COJNT*' OF ANOKA )
CITY OF FRIDLEY )1264238
In the Matter of: a variance, VAR #96-02
Owner: C. S. Jespersen and J. K. Palmer
The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the
8th day of April , 19 96 , 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 27 feet to 26 feet, and to increase the
encroachment of a deck into the side yard setback from 10 feet to 12 feet, in order
to allow the construction of a new deck, on Lot 1, Block 1, Walt Harrier 1st
Addition, generally located at 6496 Riverview Terrace N.E.
/5 -3o -a4 -La- nob 1 d
IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons:
Approval with four stipulations. See City Council meeting minutes of April 8, 1996.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
CITY OF FRIDLEY )
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, William A. Champa, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify
that I 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, 1 have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the
County of Anoka on the A3,eA day of
DRAFTED BY:
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N. E.
Fridley, MN 55432
William A. Champs, City Clerk
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within
that period.
(SCAB)".
1 ,
Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within
that period.
01
question Council will be addressing is the ti able for con-
struction of that intersection.
Councilman Billings pointed out that o Page 3, paragraph 1,
lines 2 and 4 of this resolutiZthear 1996 should be changed
to 1986.
MOTION by Councilman BillingsResolution No. 29-1996.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bo' com.
MOTION by Councilman B' lings to amend Page 3 of this resolution
as follows: in para aph 1, line 2, the second 111996" should be
changed to ""1986and in line 4, "March 17, 1996" should be
changedZbCouncilwoman
17, 1986."
SecondeBolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Maclared the motion carried unanimously.
�A VOICE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor
declared the motion carried unanimously.
14. VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #96-02, BY CORINNE JESPERSEN AND JANET
PALMER TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 27 FEET TO 26
FEET AND TO INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT OF A DECK IN THE REAR
YARD FROM 10 FEET TO 12 FEET GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6496/98
RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E. (WARD 3):
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request
for two variances, one for a rear yard setback and the other to
increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard. He stated
that when the home was constructed in 1979, it was built closer
to the rear lot line at 26 feet, rather than 27 feet. He stated
that staff has no recommendation on this one foot variance, and
it is within previously granted requests.
Mr. Hickok stated that in regard to the variance for encroachment
of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet, staff is
recommending denial, as the petitioner can reduce the width of
the deck to comply. He stated that when the deck is constructed,
the petitioner can reduce the size of the deck to the required
ten foot width by removing the two foot cantilever.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended
approval of the variances with stipulations. He stated that the
petitioner submitted letters from three homeowners who are in
agreement with the variances.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the deck was constructed without
a permit, and if the variance was approved there are some issues
with the railing and actual footing.
Ift
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 12
Mr. Hickok stated that the Chief .Building Official has outlined a
number of items that need to be addressed, and one is the
footings which should not be part of the concrete slab. He
stated that because a permit was not issued, there was no
inspection by the City.
Mr. Hickcock stated that because of the existing porch, it is
difficult to determine how the deck was affixed to the home.
Ms. Corinne Jespersen, the petitioner, stated that there was a
tiny deck on the home when she purchased it. She stated that her
son-in-law built the deck without even considering permits or
variances.
Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that it was an improvement to the
property over what existed.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR
#96-02, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner
shall apply for and receive a building permit; (2) the deck and
footings shall be inspected; (3) changes shall be made to the
deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building code; and (4)
the screen porch shall be removed. Seconded by Councilwoman
Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
15. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96
(WARD 3):
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated t this is a request
for a variance to reduce the rear yard se ack from 27 feet to 15
feet to bring into compliance a rec ly constructed screened
porch. He stated that this relates Variance Request, VAR #96-
02. Once the deck was con rted, the petitioners had a
screened porch constructed.
Mr. Hickok stated that sP6ff is recommending denial of the
variance, as the petiti er can construct a detached, screen
enclosed gazebo withou a variance. He stated that the Appeals
Commission recommend approval of this variance, as they felt. a
detached gazebo woyad be more of an imposition on the neighbors.
He stated that the three adjacent neighbors support this
variance.
Mr. Hickok 'tated that the screened porch is considered living
space an should have the same setback as the home. He stated
that s' ce it protrudes into the rear yard the variance is,
there ore, requested.
ABSTRACT
Receipt #� /0536 f/Q-Sn
Date'TimeQ-, 4't 1 1-1,-00
Doc. Order , of
✓ by: Recordaaabili :
Filing Fees: ,`
Delqs: Pins: ae
❑ Certified Copy
❑ Tax Liens/Releases
❑ Multi -Co Doc Tax Pd
❑ Transfer New
❑ Desc.
❑ Division ❑ GAC
Def.
❑ Status ❑ Spec.
ft
DOCUMENTNO. 1264238.0 ABSTRACT
ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE
FOR RECORD ON FEB 13 97
AT 5: 00 PM AND WAS DULY RECORDED.
FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19.50 PAID.
RECEIPT N0. 97010536
EDWARD M. TRESKA
ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES
BY KHJ
DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES
d �7
FcrA,
CITYOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
April 11, 1996
Corinne Jespersen
Janet Palmer
6496/98 Riverview Terrace NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Jespersen and Ms. Palmer:
On April 8, 1996, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a
variance, VAR #96-02, to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet, and to
increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet, on Lot
1, Block 1, Walt Harrier 1st Addition, the same being 6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Approval of this variance request is contingent upon the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform
Building Code.
You have one year from the date of City Council action to initiate construction. If you
cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at
least three weeks prior to the expiration date.
11
Corinne Jespersen
Janet Palmer
April 11, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590.
Sin rel , I
Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
BD/dw
Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of
Fridley Planning Department by April 25, 1996.
�i�i' / �'
question Council will be addressing is�-Ithe timetable for con-
struction of that intersection.
Councilman Billings pointed t that on Page 3, paragraph 1,
lines 2 and 4 of this resol ion, the year 1996 should be changed
to 1986.
MOTION by CouncilmaBillings to adopt Resolution No. 29-1996.
Seconded by CouncUwoman Bolkcom.
MOTION by Cou,Wbilman Billings to amend Page 3 of this resolution
as follows. "in paragraph 1, line 2, the second 111996" should be
changed t"1986" and in line 4, "March 17, 1996" should be
changed _,to "March 17, 1986."
Seco ded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting
ay , Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
14. VARIANCE REQUEST,
VAR
#96-02, BY CORINNE
JESPERSEN AND JANET
PALMER TO REDUCE
THE
REAR YARD SETBACK
FROM 27 FEET TO 26
FEET AND TO INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT OF
A DECK IN THE REAR
YARD FROM 10 FEET
TO
12 FEET, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 6496198
RIVERVIEW TERRACE
N.E.
(WARD 3):
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request
for two variances, one for a rear yard setback and the other to
increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard. He stated
that when the home was constructed in 1979, it was built closer
to the rear lot line at 26 feet, rather than 27 feet. He stated
that staff has no recommendation on this one foot variance, and
it is within previously granted requests.
Mr. Hickok stated that in regard to the variance for encroachment
of a deck in the .rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet, staff is
recommending denial, as the petitioner can reduce the width of
the deck to comply. He stated that when the deck is constructed,
the petitioner can reduce the size of the deck to the required
ten foot width by removing the two foot cantilever.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended
approval of the variances with stipulations. He stated that the
petitioner submitted letters from three homeowners who are in
agreement with the variances.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the deck was constructed without
a permit, and if the variance was approved there are some issues
with the railing and actual footing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 12
Mr. Hickok stated that the Chief Building Official has outlined a
number of items that need to be addressed, and one is the
footings which should not be part of the concrete slab. He
stated that because a permit was not issued, there was no
inspection by the City.
Mr. Hickcock stated that because of the existing porch, it is
difficult to determine how the deck was affixed to the home.
Ms. Corinne Jespersen, the petitioner, stated that there was a
tiny deck on the home when she purchased it. She stated that her
son-in-law built the deck without even considering permits or
variances.
Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that it was an improvement to the
property over what existed.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR
#96-02, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner
shall apply for and receive a building permit; (2) the deck and
footings shall be inspected; (3) changes shall be. made to the
deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building code; and (4)
the screen porch shall be removed. Seconded by Councilwoman
Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
15. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96-06, BY CORINNE JESPERSEN AND JANET
( WARD 3) :
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that is is a request
for a variance to reduce .the rear yard setb: from 27 feet to 15
feet to bring into compliance a recent constructed screened
porch. He stated that this relates to ariance Request, VAR #96-
02. Once the deck was construc d, the petitioners had a
screened porch constructed.
Mr. Hickok stated that staf is recommending denial of the
variance, as the petitioney/ can construct a detached, screen
enclosed gazebo without al,4ariance. He stated that the Appeals
Commission recommended aLoroval of this variance, as they felt a
detached gazebo would P� more of an imposition on the neighbors.
He stated that the three adjacent neighbors support this
variance.
Mr. Hickok sta d that the screened porch is considered living
space and sh ld have the same setback as the home. He stated
that since it protrudes into the rear yard the variance is,
therefore requested.
6496/98 Riverview Terrace Rear Yard Setback Variance Request
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The variance request is in two parts:
1. To reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet (existing condition).
2. To increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet.
If approved, the request would bring into compliance an existing single fiunily dwelling and a newly
constructed deck.
HARDSHIP:
'Deck/screen porch built too close to property line."
SUAB ARY OF ISSUES:
While the deck was constructed without a permit and was completed at the time of the application, the
request was analyzed as if no construction had occurred.
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25%
of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public Purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which
enhance the neighborhood.
The single family dwelling was constructed m 1979 prior to the petitioner becoming owner of the
property. The builder of the dwelling did not submit the verifying survey as required by the building
permit. The variance request to reduce the rear yard setback will bring the dwelling irrto compliance and
is within previously granted variances.
Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley City Code requires that decks extend no more than ten feet into
any required rear yard setback, provided they do not extend nearer than five feet to any lot line.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain adequate open space between structures and to
allow access and maintenance along common property lines.
14.01
VAR #96-02
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 2
The deck/screen porch was constructed without a permit. The variance to increase the encroachment of a deck into
the rear yard is not typical. Usually, requests are for encroachments into the side yard. The petitioner can reduce
the size of the deck by removing the two -foot overhang. This would bring the deck into compliance with the code.
Additional changes to the deck will be required to meet the Uniform Building Code (see memo from Ron Julkowski).
The screen porch is considered living space and will be required to be removal. The encroachment of the deck is
within previously granted variances for encroachments within the side yard.
Appeals Commission Action:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request with the stipulations indicated.
Recommendation:
A Staff has no recommendation regarding the request to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet..
B. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to increase the encroachment of the deck from 10
feet to 12 feet as the petitioner can easily reduce the width of the deck to comply. Regardless of the Council's
decision, staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building Code.
4. The screen porch shall be removed.
PROJECT DETAILS
Petition For: A variance to: (1) reduce the side yard setback of a dwelling from 27 feet to 26 feet;
(2) increase the encroachment of a deck into the rear yard from 10 feet
to 12 feet.
Location
of Property: 6496/98 Riverview Terrace
Legal Description
of Property: Lot 1, Block 1, Walt Harrier 1st Addition
Size: 10,368 square feet
Topography: Flat
Existing
Vegetation: Typical suburban; trees, sod, shrubs, etc.
Existing
Zoning/Platting: R-3, General Multiple Family; Walt Harrier Addition 1978
14.®2
VAR #96-02
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 3
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities: Connected
Vehicular
Access: Riverview Terrace
Pedestrian
Access: N/A
Engineering
Issues: None
Site Planning
Issues:
DEVELOPMENT SITE
Request
The variance request is in two parts:
1. To reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet (existing condition).
2. To increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet.
If approved, the request would bring into compliance an existing single family dwelling and a newly constructed deck
Parcel Description & history
The dwelling on the property, a duplex, was constructed in 1979. The parcel is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family
Dwelling; therefore, the duplex is a permitted use. The duplex measures 25 feet by 40 feet with an attached three -car
garage measuring 22 feet by 30 feet. No verifying survey was submitted as required by the building permit at the time
the dwelling was constructed.
Analysis
Dwelling
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25% of the lot depth
with not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public Purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
14.03
VAR #96-02
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 4
The dwelling was constructed prior to the petitioner becoming the property owner. The dwelling was constructed
with a building permit; however the builder did not submit the required verifying survey. The petitioner verified that
the dwelling is located is 26 feet from the rear lot line. Based on the formula to determine the rear yard setback
requirement, the required rear yard is 27 feet. The request to reduce the required setback by one foot is within
previously granted requests.
Deck
Section 205.04.06.A(3) of the Fridley City Code requires that decks extend no more than ten feet into any required
rear yard setback, provided they do not extend nearer than five feet to any lot line.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain adequate open space between structures and to allow -access
and maintenance along common property lines.
The original plans for the dwelling indicated a 5 foot by 13 foot deck at the southwest corner of the building. The
petitioners constructed, without a permit, a 12 foot by 14 foot deck with a screened porch underneath. The deck
encroaches 12 feet into the rear yard setback.
Even though the deck is constructed, the petitioner can reduce the size of the deck to the required 10 foot width by
removing the two foot clever. A 10 foot by 14 foot deck is of adequate size to function. Because the deck was
not inspected as it was constructed, which would normally occur if a building permit has been applied for, the Chief
Building Official inspected the deck after it was substantially completed. A number of items will need to be repaired
or reconstructed in order to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements (see memo from Ron Julkowski).
In reviewing the aerial, it was noted that the building to the south also has a deck to the rear of the dwelling. It
Wears that this dwelling does not comply with the setback requirements, therefore, its deck also does not comply.
No variances were noted in the file to indicate how this construction occurred.
The subject parcel is located in an unusually designed subdivision. There are three houses located to the rear of the
subject parcel and its adjacent neighbor to the south. This adds another consideration when analyzing the request.
The property to the rear looks onto the rear yard of the subject parcel. There is no screening fence between the two
properties. Requiring the petitioner to reduce the width of the deck by two feet would reduce the visual impact to
the adjacent property to the rear.
With the construction of the deck, the petitioner has also constructed a screened porch below the deck. This porch
can be considered living space and would require a further reduction in the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 15 feet.
This is larger than previously granted requests, and staff recommends that the screened porch be removed.
Recommendation
A Staff has no recommendation regarding the request to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet..
B. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to increase the encroachment of the deck from 10
feet to 12 feet as the petitioner can easily reduce the width of the deck to comply. Regardless of the Council's
decision, staff recommends the following stipulations:
14.04
VAR #96-02
6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Page 5
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building Code.
4. The screened porch shall be removed.
ADJACENT SITES
WEST: Zoning:
R-3, General Multiple Family
Land Use:
Residential
SOUTH: Zoning:
R-3, General Multiple Family
Land Use:
Residential
EAST: Zoning:
R-3, General Multiple Family
Land Use:
Residential
NORTH: Zoning:
R-3, General Multiple Family
Land Use:
Residential
Appeals Commission Action:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.
Comprehensive
Planning Issues: The Zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location.
Public Hearing
Comments: No one from the audience spoke regarding the request.
14.05
February 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
Appeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This letter is in response to the variance request by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
6496/6498 Riverview Terrace regarding the addition of the deck/screened porch in their
rear yard.
My property is adjacent to their rear yard and I have a clear view of the deck/screened
porch. I have no objection to this structure.
Sincerely,
Dolores Balafas
6482 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
14.13
February 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
Appeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This letter is in response to the variance request by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
6496/6498 Riverview Terrace regarding the addition of the deck/screened porch in their
rear yard.
My property is adjacent to their rear yard and I have a clear view of the deck/screened
porch. I have no objection to this structure.
Sincerely,
Shirley�erson
y
6490 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
14.14
February 21, 1996
Diane Savage, Chairperson
Appeals Commission
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Savage:
This letter is in response to the variance request by Corinne Jespersen and Janet Palmer
6496/6498 Riverview Terrace regarding the addition of the deck/screened porch in their
rear yard.
My property is adjacent to their rear yard and I have a clear view of the deck/screened
porch. I have no objection to this structure.
Sincerely,
Ethel Arnold
6492 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
14.12
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Savage called the February 14, 1996, Appeals Com 'ssion meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, os, Carol Beaulieu
Members Absent: Cathy Smith
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Plannin oordinator
Michele M f herso , Planning Assistant
Chris Huber, Su rintendent of Schools,
Independent ool District #16
Corinne J rsen, 6496 Riverview Terrace
Janet P mer, 6498 Riverview Terrace
Cath agner, 7656 N.E. Van Buren Street
D can Wagner, 7656 N.E. Van Buren Street
MOTION�►rlVlr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the January 24, 1996,
Appeals,ommission minutes as written.
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
IN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING' CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #96-02
BY CONNIE JESPERSEN AND JANET PALMER.
Per Section 205.07.01.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the rear yard
setback from 27 feet to 26 feet; and
Per Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the
encroachment of a deck into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 12 feet to allow
the construction of a new deck on Lot 1, Block 1, Walt Harrier First Addition, the
same being 6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
14.15
APPEALS COMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE 2
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the parcel is mated at 6496/6498 Riverview Terradd.which is
located at the end of Mississippi Way south of the East River Road apartments. The
request consists of two parts. The firs request is to reduce the required rear yard setback x
from 27 feet to 26 feet to correct an existing condition. The second re
quest is to increase
the encroachment of a deck into the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated that on the property is a dwelling constructed as a duplex in 1979.
The dwelling was constructed prior to the petitioners becoming the owners. The parcel as
zoned R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling; therefore, the duplex is a .permitted use on the
property. No verifying survey was supplied by the builder. Verifying surveys are a
requirement of the original building permit process.
Ms. McPherson stated the first request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to
26 feet This is calculated based on 250A of the lot depth. This request is -within previously
granted requests; therefore, staff has no recommendation.
Ms. McPherson stated the second request is to increase the encroachment of a Aeck .into
the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet. The petitioners recently completed construction of
a 12 foot x 14 foot deck which encroaches 12 feet into the rear yard. As part of the
construction, they enclosed the underside of the deck to create a screened porch. Several
pictures showing the construction were shown. This screened porch was constructed
without a permit. The Building Division noticed the construction, contacted the property
owners, and told them they would need to apply for a permit. Ms. McPherson asked the
Chief Building Official to inspect the deck. At that time, the structure was substantially
completed. The Chief Building Officials's comments are included as part of the staff report
A number of items will need to be changed in order to comply with the building code.
Ms. McPherson stated the original .plans include a deck measuring 5 feet x 13 feet located
in the area of the newly conshWed deck. Staff analyzed the petitioners' options regarding
the deck and reviewed the plans submitted by the petitioner. There is a two -foot cantilever
on the deck. Staff has recommended the variance be denied as the petitioners could
remove the cantilever to the support beam and bring the deck into compliance.
Ms. McPherson stated the code allows for the encroachment of unenclosed decks into the
rear yard; however, it does not permit enclosed decks or porches to encroach into the rear
yard. This poses an additional variance requirement as the lower level is enclosed. Staff
recommends the petitioners be required to remove the porch as a variance would be
required to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet.to 15 feet.
APPEALS COMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE 3
Ms. McPherson stated staff has no -recommendation regarding the,first request to reduce
the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet. This is within previously granted requests.
Staff recommends denial of the request to increase the encroachment of the deck from 10
feet to 12 feet as the deck can be reduced to meet the requirements. Regardless of the
Commission's decision; staff recommends the following stipulations:
1: ' The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The de& and footings shall be inspected:
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building
Code.
4. The screened porch shall be removed.
Ms. Savage stated the Commission does not have a variance request for the enclosed
porch.
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the stairway could encroach.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes.
Dr. Vos asked the depth of the lot.
Ms. McPherson stated the lot is 108 feet deep.
Dr. Vos stated they usually do not ran up against that encroachment. Even if the screened
porch was moved back to the 10 foot mark, it would still be encroaching.
Ms. McPherson stated this is correct. The code is very dear on unenclosed decks. A
screened porch is considered living space because it is screened.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there would be a problem if the deck was put in the side yard to the
south.
Ms. McPherson stated she did not have a verifying survey so she did not know the exact
dimension. There is approximately 20 feet. Again the code says a deck can encroach 3
feet into the side yard as long as it is not closer than 5 feet from the lot line. The maximum
deck on the side yard would be 13 feet.
14.17
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE 4
Ms. Jespersen stated she and Ms. Palmer purchased the duplex about six years ago. At
that time, the outside was a disaster with overgrown trees, a parking lot to the side, and
cars that had to be removed. They now have grass growing and have landscaped and - -
cleaned up the property. The duplex had a deck before; and because her. sonan-law_.;, ._
knows how to build decks, he put. in the new deck. She did not know they had to get a
permit. She cannot change the location of the house being over the line. t ;k
Ms. Palmer stated that if the house was sitting in the right position, they would then be `
encroaching by one foot. They are talking about one foot. The reason they enclosed the
bottom half is that they live by the river and have mosquitoes. An open deck is unusable
because of the mosquitoes. It is just a sitting space - not a living space. They probably
would not have enclosed it if not for the insects there.
Ms. Jespersen stated she talked to her son-in-law and he said he would be. willing to make
the changes required. The deck is on the back of the house because that is the location
of the patio doors.
Ms. Savage stated they would be conforming if they removed the two foot cantilever.
Ms. Jespersen stated they built the deck at 12 feet because most lumber is 12 feet in
length. Going out 10 feet would cost the same but they would have to cut off two feet. She
did not know they were encroaching. On the drawing, it shows that the stairs come out.
It did not look good to have the stairs come out too far and does not look right. If they take
off two feet where they have the stairs, they will have to redo the stairs also.
Dr. Vos asked if the duplex was set back from the front of the lot.
Ms. Jespersen stated the garage is up front.
Ms. Palmer showed before and after pictures of the property.
Dr. Vos stated the petitioner could be meting or even exceeding code requirements in the
front.
Ms. McPherson stated that without a verifying survey, she cannot say. The petitioner is
pretty confident of the 26 -foot dimension in the back.
Ms. Palmer stated they have three families living behind their property who have no
objections.
Ms. Savage asked why the issue of the pore is not before the Commission..
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE 5
Ms. McPherson stated staff did not notify the adjacent property owners for that It would
require renotification. Staff could work out the issue and perhaps waive the fee if that is
what the petitioners want to pursue.
Mr. Hickok stated that if it is okay with the petitioners and if the petitioners wish to pursue
the .porch issue, 41aff would work through the fee issues and renotify adjacent property
owners. Procedurally, staff would like to bring it to the Council as one package. At the
next meeting, staff would bring back the screened porch issue for a decision and then
bring the entire request to the Council.
There were no further comments from the public.
MOTION by Mr. Kuec hle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated they could table this item so they could consider both at the same time.
Mr. Kuecile stated they could approve the 12 feet In looking at the aerial photo, it looks
as if the space between the deck and the house to the west is quite a bit, so it is not likely
they are right on top of the adjacent house. He did not see a big problem. He is not very
sympathetic to those who build and do not get a permit, but he can see how it may have
happened. By and large, the impact is minimal. The porch will be tougher because the
encroachment is not large. If they were just dealing with the variances as presented, he
would recommend approval with the stipulations.
Ms. Beaulieu agreed.
Dr. Vos stated he did not think of the screened porch as being different than a deck. He
did not see any advantage of sawing off two feet They still have the step problem. There
is the hardship that the house is set abnormally back on the lot. They couldn't even put
a stick out the back because of the way the house was constnxted.
Ms. Savage stated she would agree with the remarks made. What are the limitations as
far as the porch?
Ms. McPherson stated that as opposed to attaching the porch to the house, the petitioner
has the option of building a detached gazebo. This would provide the same desire but
does not get into code issues. They could go within three feet of the lot line with a
maximum of 240 square feet without a variance.
Ms. Savage stated the petitioner cannot extend back for an enclosed living structure.
14.19
APPEALS COWISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE 6
Ms. McPherson stated the code clearly calls out unenclosed decks versus enclosed
spaces.
x.
Dr. Vos stated the same issue would come up d they were proposing a dining room
addition into the back yard or a screened porch. Both would require a variance.
Mr. Kuechle suggested making a recommendation on the variance. If the petitioner r,
decides not to pursue the issue of the screened porch, this can then be forwarded to the
City Council
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Variance
Request, VAR #96-02, by Connie Jespersen and Janet Palmer to reduce the rear yard
setback from 27 feet to 26 feet; and to increase the encroachment of a deck into the rear
yard setback from 10 feet to 12 feet to allow the construction of a new deck on Lot 1, Block = J
1, Walt Harrier First Addition, the same being 6496/98 Riverview Terrace N.E., with the
following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The deck and footings shall be inspected.
3. Changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building
Code.
4. The screened porch shall be removed. (If the petitioners pursue the a variance for
the porch, this stipulation will be deleted.)
Dr. Vos stated he could not vote on this motion with the stipulation -to remove the screened
porch. They do not know what the petitioners will do.
Ms. Savage stated the intent is that the petitioners wifl have the opportunity to come back
with a variance request for the porch if they decide to keep it.
Mr. Kuechle stated that if the,petitioners decide to take the screened porch out, they then
do not have to come back.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the petitioners submit a variance request for the porch, it
would negate that stipulation.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY..
14.20
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBROARY 14, 1996 PAGE 7
Ms. McPherson stated this request would go before the City Council on February 26
because staff recommended denial of the request. If the petitioners decide to come in for
a new variance for the porch, staff.will then hold both requests.
4
Imur-MMUM I - ti U11i I tslu i W1W.
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to 30.25 fedt to allow the construction of an addition at 880
Osborne Road N. E. (Woodccrest E entary School)..
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr.
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HE
to waive the reading of the public hearing
3ERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance request iskdi'ct
dcrest Elementary School located
at 880 Osborne Road. The request is to reduequired front yard setback from 35
feet to 30.25 feet. The variance is to allow coon of a 2,645 square foot addition
onto the front of the school. The school is currently doing a number of
improvements to elementary schools in the distthis improvement is a part of other
improvements that will be occurring at Woodcreing ADA improvements, improving
administrative spaces, miscellaneous repairseatherization improvements. The
proposed addition is to the library located at the the school. The district proposes
to expand the library space and add a media rcomputers and other technology.
Ms. McPherson stated there is more adequate space 0
parts of the school. However, from a programmatic ar
more sense for the addition as it is directly tied to the libri
width of the variance is actually to accommodate an re
outdoor access. This is a uniform fire and building code
variance would not exist.
Mr. Kuechle asked if they could pull everything back.
provide additional room on other
functional standpoint, it makes
space and its expansion. The
q ired exit door to provide direct
r uirement. If not required, the
Ms. McPherson stated they would have to redesign the staiy in order to have enough
space at the landing to provide exit space. The variance i within previously granted
requests. If approved, staff recommends the following stipul ion:
1. Relocation of the below -ground storage tank shall com ly with Fire Department
permitting requirements.
1
14.21
APPUCAIION REVIEW CHECKLIST
FILE:
APPLICATION�1p
'� le! h
RECEIVED
,'��"q�
W PY /S'+lbo
-deck- G+u o 46L-
DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMM
ADDRESS FILE
I�d'!q I sj57.,jo jc2° ew&4z F died
REVIEWED
LANDUSE
FILES?
V
l Z�:9�P
L 3Xi� 2,7-
ZLAND
lain Y 3v�''
I Ip11ir
,�
PETITIONER
CALLED
SITE
VISIT/MEETING
AERIAL
PHOTO MADE
MAPS DONE''
✓
g
d -
REPORT
WRITTEN
✓
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a
Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on
Wednesday, February 14, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of:
Consideration of variance request, VAR #96-02, by Corinne Jespersen
and Janet Palmer:
Per Section 205.07.01.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the
rear yard setback from 27 feet to 26 feet; and
Per Section 205.04.06.A:(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the
encroachment of a deck into the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 12 feet to
allow the construction of a new deck on Lot 1, Block 1, Walt Harrier First
Addition, the same being 6496198 Riverview Terrace N. E., Fridley, MN 55432
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above
stated time and place.
DIANE SAVAGE
CHAIRPERSON
APPEALS COMMISSION
Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community
Development Department, 572-3593.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons
with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500
no later than February 7, 1996.
1
,a
&P -!��soo
ed
ov
;0,
9 �
- 1st ace.��• ����5�� � "gCsCow
GOZ�4
t-
31 g�� pl`� G� x,11 3ti O &�l
12i 6ti s� .9pg� 55A 6
FRR. ��g,� 65�3z 6N�g
oR
vs;
g 55 y�GVO S
6480 RIVERSp1 g��
FRIDLEY Ml pv�� lo!. 8t
6° ti�� ,S �+G� Q�'� 32
RESIDENT Q,s .`r' Gam' 1�ti
6540 EAST RIVES 5���� 5p�3ti X61 �,`� S�
FRIDLEY MN 554. 0�
93��
6�`_`nti� p� 4G9fl;
� g 553250 �,O 1�
DIANE SAVAGE' $� c 1`� 04SO567 RICE CREEK TERRti�� 009 55
FRIDLEY MN 55432 Og6�S �p� G5 �'1`� 1ti°�p+`S
'4<A.
gy`L
co�s�
0
$otioG�S�Sg 5 �s
Sc
5s�g5t
i���
Avo
e,2
C��F CITY OF FRIDLEY
rIYOF COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW
File Number N File Date Meeting Date
2 1/12/96 2/14/96
----------------
File Description: VAR 496-02 by Connie Jespersen and Janet Palmer
Rear -yard and side yard setbacks to allow the construction of a new deck
Complete Review Checklist; Return to The Community Development Department
*** Comments ***
Barbara Dacy
Scott Hickok
Michele McPherson
Jon Wilczek
John Flora
Ron Julkowski
Leon Madsen
Dave Sallman
Dick Larson
CITY OF FRIDLEY p
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM
PROPERTY I F M TI - site plan required for submittal; see attached
a
Address: R P6 6
Property Identificatio Number (P 16,16 j q,q ol 66 9 4
Legal description: Z57Lo 91 (4®aA1.1 ,�9 kl#
Lot Block Tract/Addition '
Current zoning: ),di o l, Square fotage/acreage
Reason for variance and hardship: ee Lig®
'kb 1-1JJ6Section of City Code:
Have you operated a busin ss in a city which required a business license?
Yes No If yes, which city?
If yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME & R-iW'06 6 t�� �✓�� e -a
ADDRESS 60uqy !damV goe e'g
YTIME PHONE
SIGNATURE J DATE O
PETITIONER INFORMATION
ADDRESS A a6P)i(&ij' TeP- .Ade- YiidLf-yo hU S
PHONE
SIGNATURE s DATE ®/
....n... �..... �.�.�..v.........n.. �' u.H..H. ,.....�.N..... ..u..� ....� �.u.H. �.u. �' w.,�
Fee: $100.00 $ 60.00 '-�for resiential properties
Permit VAR #� C7 �. Receipt #�3
Application received by: ,"4
Scheduled Appeals Commission date: f�
Scheduled City Council date.
DA)
gel
APPLICATION
DATE
City of Fridley COmmunity DevelOPment Variance Process
APPEALS
COMMISSION
DATE
weeks i; . 2
CITY `COUNCIL
DECISION
CITY RECORDS
ACTION AT
ANOKA COUNTY
10%
L
al
VAR #96-02
/„ _ ,
card acus i a -
VAR #96-02
6496/98 Riverview Terrace
14.06
LOCATION MAP
<UWZ
16'96
i6'96
Dt
yl0
3D View of Your Deck
14.07
VAR #96-02
Jespersen/Palmer
80
Top View of Your Deck
The Scale is 1/4": 1'
14'
VAR #96-02
Jespersen/Palmer
4'
Your deck Is 9' high
The deck is designed for a 40 PSF live load.
14.10
P,
4XID ,
C(���"eJ
9
A
Cpt.
4-0
/_O5VT/
'P*txnr OC
VAR #96-02
3® View of Your Deck 'espersen/Palmer
VAR #96-02
Jespersen%Palmer
3D View of Your Check
14.08
`..4�.��t��1 1 � I'7 �at�`1' ��'�,�i� ? ^a�!i��4��M�,�"t�ti ,a-�I.t_,�✓
FFF
c
`..4�.��t��1 1 � I'7 �at�`1' ��'�,�i� ? ^a�!i��4��M�,�"t�ti ,a-�I.t_,�✓
r
t
� a
I 9 17
m
I
� / / ��• t.4 $� ! R�ory�sy��F�V 1 ,'.'•••bLr�
4
/ \ t .,?, o Sys d job Cyt i4 t i� tu' n iti ►N
bo
�• A°°� ��;AOF
`�" "`,� +� ° ) t\e a se
r y(40
14
4 his tt t0,�F ® 9`ip, ��•Ei ��) s .) (Q3%6's a
It
651/
it
it
21/
A
1 bFo. . s /ll `t�� `� '' �1 �` �� ..p'�� ,so ��4 �� sL • + � .�� _ q� c
y
Y h
.• 1. — 4 �•' t _
(F
+I
„ � ' +P 1\ „=: • . / Vis) � • �'4�d� � � • ��.;y ��, � � � � y .
,.,�;
� � . r ti��b'Y�. • q
1 Ap�
:t•c•;as: �3r \ i ,.�0 �6 jib 79.1
�
3, �, i'ee''e� � � l\D91 R � ` � _�� g5•o�� �E�� 'O � `� �"'� �l.'� 1!'
i
O ��.• \ ` �• �s.,� Nay
a
`til � s• , �' �fli � %sr' �J(•�l � .} q -S� TI B�� i'i, 4` r
79
01