VAR 99-060
C17YOF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1257
APPEALS COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
May 19, 1999
Jody Jakubik and Kirk Scherer
8145 Ruth Street
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Jakubik and Mr. Scherer:
On May 12, 1999, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for
variance, VAR #99-06, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 27 feet to allow
the construction of a covered deck on Lot 6, Block 4, Bourdeaux's Springbrook Addition,
generally located at 8145 Ruth Street with the following stipulations:
1. The property owner shall obtain building permits prior to construction.
2. Any garage that is to be built in the future shall not exceed the 25% lot coverage.
3. All exterior work in the front shall be completed by September 1, 1999.
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,
V
Paul Bolin
Planning Assistant
FSW
Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley
Planning Department by June 3, 1999.
Concur with action taken.
I
CITY OF FRIDLE�C��
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 12, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice -Chairperson Mau called to order the May 12, 1999, Appeals Commission meeting
at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Terrie Mau, Ken Vos, Carol Beaulieu
Members Absent: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Robert Scherer, 8145 Ruth Street
Kirk Scherer, 8145 Ruth Street
Greg and Brenda Hansen, 8135 Ruth Street
APPROVAL OF APRIL 28 1999 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the April 28, 1999, Appeals
Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #99-
06. BY JODY JAKUBIK AND KIRK SCHERER:
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 feet to 27 feet: and per Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley
Zoning Code, to increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28% to allow
the construction of a covered deck on Lot 6, Block 4, Bourdeaux's Springbrook
Addition, generally located at 8145 Ruth Street.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioners are seeking a variance to reduce the required front yard
setback from 35 feet to 27 feet to allow the construction of a covered deck and to
increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28% to allow the construction of a new
attached garage. The code requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet and that
not more than 25% of the lot shall be covered by buildings. The property is located at
the corner of Ruth Street and Ruth Circle. The property is zoned R-1 as are the
surrounding properties.
Mr. Bolin quoted the petitioners' hardship statement: 'We want to have a covered
walk/entrance to our house and, with a long rambler, 60 feet, some small foyer would
not be fitting with the neighborhood. We would also like to bring house more in line with
neighborhood as far as appearance and look. We currently have, from old owner, a
garage, small in back of yard, long drive and a bad deck; also, a blacktop drive in the
front yard. We would remove all those and put attached garage like all houses in
neighborhood. Also, my wife is licensed daycare provider and play yard would be safer
and need garage for craft storage too."
Mr. Bolin showed photos of the property. The owners are currently re -roofing. The
siding is off the front of the house awaiting the outcome of this variance request. The
house has an existing deck and garage that will be removed. There is currently a
driveway in the rear yard that enters the detached garage. There is a driveway in the
front yard that the petitioner will remove. At one time there was an attached garage.
The previous owners turned that into living space, but did not remove the driveway in
the front yard.
Mr. Bolin reviewed the site plans showing the front covered deck and the plan for the
attached double garage. The garage as shown is set back 16 feet which is closer than
the required 25 feet. That would require the petitioner, at the time of constructing the
garage, to either request another variance or to move the garage back 9 feet.
Mr. Bolin stated staff has no recommendation regarding the front yard setback request
because it is within previously granted variances. There have been a number of similar
requests since the City put together the remodeling handbook, which is generally aimed
at rambler -style homes. Many of the things shown in the handbook are new front
entrances. Staff is currently working on some draft language to amend the zoning text
to decrease the front yard setback perhaps between 25 feet and 30 feet to allow
residents to add to older ramblers without numerous variance requests. Staff also has
no recommendation on the lot coverage request because that, too, is within previously
granted variances. If the Appeals Commission chooses to approve the variance, staff
recommends the following stipulations:
1. The property owner shall obtain building permits prior to construction.
2. The proposed garage shall be moved back to meet setbacks or a variance
must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage.
Mr. Bolin stated staff did receive three calls from neighbors. Two calls were inquiries as
to the plans. One caller suggested that some time limits be placed on how soon the
driveway in the front yard shall be removed. One letter was received in the mail, a copy
of which was provided to the Appeals Commission. The letter also basically requests
having time limits placed on when these things need to happen. As far as the
variances, they are good for one year unless construction has started. It is within the
discretion of the Appeals Commission to add any stipulations deemed necessary.
Ms. Beaulieu asked if the letter was from the caller or if these were from two different
people.
Mr. Bolin stated he did not know.
Ms. Beaulieu stated the time issue is a legitimate concern. How long does the petitioner
have to complete the project?
Mr. Bolin stated there is no real set time. The petitioner needs to continue making
progress. Building permits are similar to variances where the resident has one year to
begin construction. He has seen stipulations placed that if a project is not completed
within a year, the petitioner would have to come back before the Appeals Commission
for an extension.
Mr. Scherer stated he wanted to assure the neighbors that this will be finished. The
neighbors have been very generous with them. They are pleasant people. 'He moved
into the house three years ago. His wife owned the home previously. They hired a
contractor two years ago to put in windows but he went "belly up". Last year, he worked
out of town. When they started to put in the bay windows, they found insulation only
halfway up on the walls. They took off the siding to re -insulate the house. The siding
will be delivered and put on three sides of the house while they are waiting for this
process. Three sides of the roof are now done. The front will be done when they learn
the outcome of this request. The siding is paid for and will be delivered when the rain
stops. Regarding the front driveway, the driveway was existing when his wife
purchased the house. It will be removed. They want a new front to give interest to the
front and have it be more like other homes.
Mr. Scherer stated the garage is planned for next year. They want to do the garage
because the back yard is mainly driveway and the garage is too low. They have water
in the garage. They also have a barn roof shed and a deck which will all go. They plan
to resod the back yard and make it nice. It would improve the appearance for the
neighbors. His wife does daycare and it would make a more secure back yard. At the
same time they are doing the porch work and fixing the front yard, they plan to remove
the existing hedge to make the yard more open and green. The porch will be a white
railing porch, and the soffets, fascia, and windows will also be white. He wants to keep
it back so as not to infringe on the neighbors. They have remodeled the inside of the
house and are now trying to get the outside to look better.
Ms. Beaulieu asked the petitioner is he plans to take out the front driveway when he
puts in the front porch.
Mr. Scherer stated, yes. That will come out first. He can understand the concerns. He
will be starting as soon as it stops raining. He is working in town now, and he will be
here all summer so it will be done by September.
Dr. Vos asked if the reason the lot coverage is exceeding 25% is because of the porch
and the garage.
Mr. Bolin stated this is correct.
Dr. Vos stated the size of the proposed garage is 30 feet x 26 feet. Will the petitioners
exceed the required lot coverage even if the shed is removed?
Mr. Bolin stated they would be 323 square feet over 25% lot coverage.
Dr. Vos asked the petitioner if there was a reason why a setback of 27 feet when other
variances have been approved to 29 feet and 28 feet.
Mr. Scherer stated he did not know about other variances. The 8 -foot porch extends 6
feet from the current overhang, and the 6 -foot porch extends 4 feet from the current
overhang. Mr. Hickok thought the footprint looked good. The porch will not come out
as far as the shrubs that are there now.
Dr. Vos stated the key you have on the footprint for the garage is not allowable
unless you move it back 9 feet, which puts the garage behind the house. ?????
Mr. Bolin stated from the foundation of the house to the front of the proposed garage is
about 5 feet.
Mr. Scherer stated he was not sure about that. He had not talked about it. His dad
drew up the plans that are 25 feet from the street.
Dr. Vos stated that may be correct, but it is not 25 feet from the property line. This has
to do with how many vehicles you can park there. If it is a very short driveway, you
cannot see traffic.
Mr. Scherer stated another short driveway is located directly across from them. That is
why they are keeping 25 feet from the street.
Dr. Vos asked if there was anything on the south side that makes a hardship other than
that you are trying for a covered entry and trying to store more in that garage.
Mr. Scherer stated the covered entry is for the daycare without being too obvious. They
want it to blend in with the house and with the neighborhood.
Mr. Hansen stated he had some concerns. Is there any recourse for the neighbors if
the variance is not complied with or if they change their mind? The neighbor prior to Mr.
Ms. Mau stated they have heard concerns about the neighbor's dog and having a
privacy fence or a buffer to keep the kids away. The current garage is too close to his
property.
Mr. Scherer stated he and his wife have talked about this already. They don't want a
huge fence but plan to put in a buffer to keep the kids away from there. With an
attached garage, they don't have to worry about the kids getting out into the street.
They want to take out the existing fence, and will create a buffer in the back yard.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M.
Ms. Beauleiu stated the front yard setback to 27 feet sounds reasonable to her. She
hates to see the maximum lot coverage go above 25% but she does see the need for it
in this case.
Dr. Vos stated he would vote in favor of the front yard setback to 27 feet. It seems like
a reasonable plan. He would not approve the increase in lot coverage to 28%. He did
not see the hardship for a bigger garage. Something must be done to make it hit 25%.
If there was something about the land that they could not do it or if there was a drop off,
he could vote to approve. The garage is what puts the lot coverage over 25%. The
garage will also need to be adjusted because of the setback issues.
Ms. Mau agreed. The setback is as much of a concern as is the lot coverage.
Dr. Vos stated that if the petitioners are going to do work on the front of the house, they
must remove the driveway by a reasonable date. The first stipulation deals with the
permits which are a given. The second stipulation deals with the garage setback. The
garage is not proposed to be done until next year. Is that stipulation appropriate at this
time?
Mr. Bolin suggested Commission may want to put in a stipulation about the size of the
garage such as, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage, the lot
coverage and the setback requirements be met as well.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she thought the time limit should be more than just for the removal
of the driveway. This should include the entire front exterior should be completed by
perhaps September 30, 1999, or September 1, 1999.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve Variance Request, VAR
#99-06, by Jody Jakubik and Kirk Scherer, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet
to 27 feet, to allow the construction of a covered deck on Lot 6, Block 4, Bourdeaux's
Springbrook Addition, generally located at 8145 Ruth Street, with the following
stipulations:
Scherer converted the attached double garage into living space. They were supposed
to take out the front driveway, and they did not do it. The neighbors had no recourse.
They have been looking at a driveway that goes nowhere for nine years. When the
former owner built the second garage, they built it so far back that it is only about 2 feet
from the fence. He did not think it was legal. That garage is never used because it fills
with water and is small. He wants to make sure that, if the variance is granted, the work
is done the way it is supposed to be done.
Ms. Mau asked if the previous owner had obtained a building permit for the garage.
Mr. Bolin stated he believed there was a building permit in the file.
Dr. Vos stated that person would have had so many days to remove the driveway. In
driving to the meeting tonight, which takes about 2 minutes, he found two driveways
such as this.
Mr. Hansen stated the plan looks great. They now have toys in the yard, and it looks
cluttered. His other concern is that, once they take out the existing garage, kids will be
right next to his fence. He has a large dog, and he is afraid that it will create problems.
He would like to see some kind of buffer. Now the kids do not play behind the garage or
the shed. Although the dog likes kids, if he sees them running around a lot he may snip
at them. Is there any recourse if they decide in the middle of the project that they don't
want to do this?
Mr. Bolin stated that if the variance is granted and the petitioner only partially completes
the project, it would be considered a nonconforming use and the variance would
become void. In the case of damage to the home greater than 40% of its value, the
home could not be rebuilt to that same size.
Mr. Hansen stated he is not saying Mr. Scherer will not do the work, but the last
neighbor did not cavy through.
Mr. Bolin stated the Appeals Commission has the opportunity to place some
performance standards on the variance. They could stipulate that the porch and the
front porch be removed by September.
Ms. Mau asked that if the neighbor does not do the project, what recourse do the
neighbors have?
Mr. Bolin stated he would like to check with the City Attorney on the possibilities. It is
more of a burden on the petitioner if they do not follow through and the property
becomes nonconforming.
Mr. Scherer stated he has heard comments from the neighbors because of the last
owner. They have decided to stay in the home, but want to make it look better.
I . Property owner shall obtain building permits prior to construction.
2. Any garage that is to be built in the future shall not exceed the 25% lot coverage.
3. All exterior work in the front shall be completed by September 1, 1999.
Dr. Vos stated that the exterior work would include removal of the existing driveway,
completion of the front deck, siding, roofing, etc. In other words, completion of all the
building permits.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to deny the portion of Variance
Request, VAR #99-06, by Jody Jakubik and Kirk Scherer, to increase the lot coverage
from 25% to 28%.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider this request on May 24.
Dr. Vos stated the request will be reviewed by the City Council. The petitioner does
have the option of withdrawing the portion of the variance request concerning the lot
coverage. The petitioner may then have to again go through this process at the time
they plan to construct the garage.
Mr. Scherer stated he would like to withdraw the lot coverage portion of the variance.
2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Mr. Bolin provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Bolin stated the Appeals Commission will not meet on May 26 or on June 9.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 12, 1999, APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR -99-06 May 12, 1999
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Jody Jakubik & Kirk Scherer
8145 Ruth St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Variance
Purpose:
To decrease the required front yard
setback from 35 feet to 27 feet for the
construction of a covered deck and to
increase the maximum lot coverage from
25% to 28%.
Existing Zoning:
Residential - 1
Location:
8145 Ruth St.
Size:
9,555 sq. ft. .22 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family & R-1
E: Single Family & R-1
S: Single Family & R-1
W: Single Family & R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
ZoningOrdinance Conformance:
Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a
minimum front yard setback of 35'.
Section 205.07.03.0 requires that not
more than 25% of a lot shall be covered
by buildings.
Zoning History:
Lot platted in 1962.
Home built 1988.
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 6, Block 4, Bordeaux's Springbrook
Addition
Council Action:
May 24, 1999
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed via Ruth Street.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot contains a shed, the home, garage,
and deck.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The petitioners are seeking to decrease the
required front yard setback from 35' to 27' to
allow the construction of a covered entrance
deck. The petitioner is also seeking to increase
the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28% in
order to replace the existing garage and shed
with a new garage in the future.
SUMMARY OF HARDSIHP
"Would like also like to bring house more in
line with neighborhood as far as appearance
and look. " (Full letter attached)
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff has no recommendation due to the
fact that these requests are within previously
granted dimensions.
VAR 99-03 350 Ironton
Setback reduced to 28' for a home addition.
VAR 99-04 590 Hugo
Setback reduced to 29' for a covered porch.
VAR 97-12 261 Ely Street
Setback reduced to 29' for an entry addition
VAR 95-29 7301 Lyric Lane
Lot coverage increased to 28.7%.
VAR 94-16 6240 Alden Way
Lot coverage increased to 25.8%.
VAR 93-14 686 Kimball St.
Lot coverage increased to 31 %.
Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin
VAR -99-06
HARDSHIP STATEMENT
"We want to have a covered walk entrance to our house. With a long rambler, 60'. some
small foyer would not be fitting with neighborhood.
We would also like to bring house more in line with neighborhood as far as appearance
and look.
We currently have, from old owner, a garage - small in back of yard, long drive, and a
bad deck, also, a blacktop drive in front yard. We would remove all those and put
attached garage like all houses in neighborhood. Also my wife is licensed daycare
provider and play yard would be safer and need garage for craft storage too."
- Kirk Scherer
ANALYSIS
The petitioners have submitted comprehensive drawings of how they plan to enhance
the appearance of their home. The plans include removing the existing drive from the
front of the home, removing the existing garage and deck from the rear yard, and
removing a portion of the current drive in the rear yard. If the variances are granted,
the petitioners will construct a covered entrance porch, re -shingle, and re -side their
home this construction season. The submitted plan also includes an attached garage
to be constructed during the next construction season. The proposed garage will need
to be moved 9' further from the property line or seek a variance before it is constructed.
Section 205.07.03.D.(1) requires a minimum front yard setback of 35'. The petitioners
are seeking to decrease the required front yard setback from 35' to 27' to allow the
construction of covered entrance foyer / deck / porch.
The proposed deck / porch would extend from 6' to 8' out from the front of the home
and would run for a length of 42' along the front of the home. Drawings of the new
deck, suggest that it would architecturally enhance the front of the home.
Section 205.07.03.0 requires that not more than 25% of a lot shall be covered by
buildings. The proposed covered deck and future attached garage would increase the
lot coverage to 28.38%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff has no recommendation due to the fact that these requests are within
previously granted dimensions.
VAR 99-03 350 Ironton
Front yard setback reduced to 28' for a home addition.
VAR 99-04 590 Hugo
Front yard setback reduced to 29' for a covered porch.
VAR 97-06 198 Mercury Drive
Front yard setback reduced to 15' for a garage addition.
VAR 95-29 7301 Lyric Lane
Maximum lot coverage increased to 28.7%.
VAR 94-16 6240 Alden Way
Maximum lot coverage increased to 25.8%.
VAR 93-14 686 Kimball St.
Maximum lot coverage increased to 31 %.
STIPULATIONS
If approved by the appeals commission, staff recommends the following stipulations be
attached:
1. Property owner obtain building permits prior to construction.
2. Proposed garage be moved back to meet setbacks or variance obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit for the garage.
PROPOSED 9EVI510wi5
RUT44 GIRGI.E
8 "«uGa 1
csc o
1
� Is,r► 1
rtiu 7�
M
w F
oB� •
SURVEY PLAN
r - ,so*
L.oT 6 bICGK 4
goup"wxs 4PP"la DMOOLAVKPITIO04
F�n4TuJC+ � �•"...T7OA15
LOT • aI 4.5,5S i.1►.
..,yy 1624• ibaa.7f s.P.
Hou6E •Is""Fs *.P.
2 mow• 06}.4U b.P
MC41 a 141.4 rt.l'
Ml sb +
ToTAL. 20j,&.os sr.
. 21.11 '%
uNaaa 179.714610.
pu,
V*M-
LeT > 456+5 6.P.
.Y1.ow II426 � 2,!8!.'78 st.R
}i0u 6G a 1,6Go sK
p�4K6 • 2tt S.P.
at aP.
Pi�OA6e.. 44 s.f.
Grnnw4En 7aos,P,
To eL .2!f 12.6.F. Z
6TFWTum6. 26.96%
overt 625.25 s,vo.
o-
Ivo Q�o-rr l..rroez
�
j
1
_ OWSWAY
I
o'
K
3
1 — I
IWWA"
i \\P�sf�c�e r4=6sex
o
low
1
DECK
_
Wrt!•JLWra+
I
.
i
i
I
I
Mou"
�zro'
ll,iJr
Ira 2d
PROPOSED 9EVI510wi5
RUT44 GIRGI.E
8 "«uGa 1
csc o
1
� Is,r► 1
rtiu 7�
M
w F
oB� •
SURVEY PLAN
r - ,so*
L.oT 6 bICGK 4
goup"wxs 4PP"la DMOOLAVKPITIO04
F�n4TuJC+ � �•"...T7OA15
LOT • aI 4.5,5S i.1►.
..,yy 1624• ibaa.7f s.P.
Hou6E •Is""Fs *.P.
2 mow• 06}.4U b.P
MC41 a 141.4 rt.l'
Ml sb +
ToTAL. 20j,&.os sr.
. 21.11 '%
uNaaa 179.714610.
pu,
V*M-
LeT > 456+5 6.P.
.Y1.ow II426 � 2,!8!.'78 st.R
}i0u 6G a 1,6Go sK
p�4K6 • 2tt S.P.
at aP.
Pi�OA6e.. 44 s.f.
Grnnw4En 7aos,P,
To eL .2!f 12.6.F. Z
6TFWTum6. 26.96%
overt 625.25 s,vo.
o-
4V .77
6US us all
MW
WAopod
ore
Pat, Engine
-Xv. I
ase'.
V..., ,.-MortCfor
W,-*:-,: 77-
07
EC/�4C't4•rr,��
Its I
t
Bt
0.. T 6.
Sit.
X.,
iv,
WrO-z
lom�
4w
I
SUBURBAN 1140INEIRININC.
4
aa=d pa*tw aq lyt&
11 FCity of Community Development Department
IM Fridlev Variance Request Notification
_Ww
E
I
m -M
N AsFda.rCWOAartrrirg
=GS
Ardo Ctyn %mhv
R-1 - One Family Units
R2- Two Farnily Units
NF1- Ught Indt�sfrial
NF2-F�Indtletriel
0
R-3 - General Multiple Units
W3- htwdve Heavy ' �
Z
R-4 - Mobile Home Parks
P - Public Fliyss
LLI
PUD- Planned Unit Development
0 ROW
L J
S-1- Hyde Park Neighborhoods
S-2- Redevelopment District
Variance Request VAR # 99-06
G1- Local Business
N Parcell / Lot Ums
J
0 G2 -General Business
�'Water Rehm 8145 Ruth Street NE.
�s* G3 -General Shopping
i GRI - General Office
E
I
m -M
N AsFda.rCWOAartrrirg
=GS
Ardo Ctyn %mhv
8118 I\ _wth Street
Fridley, MN 55432
May 10, 1999
Planning Coordinator
6431 University Ave. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Attn: Scott Hickok
Subject: Case No. VAR #99-06
Variance at 8145 Ruth Street NE
Gentlemen:
We live directly across the street from 8145 Ruth
St. NE.
We do not have a problem with the variance requested
if you are able to require that construction will
be completed within the time frame called out on
a building permit for the work to be completed.
Current construction projects have been underway
for a considerable time, exceeding one year. Without
completion assurance, we urge you to reject the
variance required.
Yours truly,
r
ROBERT E. VENNE
s
Request for variance at 8145 Ruth St. N.E.
I have looked at the plans drawn up for 8145 Ruth St. N.E. The plans look
like they will improve the looks of the property but they are just Plans and
the people that live there don't have a good track record on completing
Projects. An Example: They took the siding off the front of there house
2 years ago and it still hasn't been replaced.
If this variance is to be approved I feel there should be a Time Limit put on
these improvements. The city of Fridley inspectors office should follow up
and enforce this project.
The Previous owners took there attached garage and made it into living space.
The driveway in front was supposed to be removed within 90 days of completion.
This was never done. The original agreement with the city was to insert sod in
in that area.
I also feel that because they operate a Day Care Center Business in their home
that at least a 6' privacy fence should surround their back yard to help alleviate
Noise etc. for the surrounding neighbors.
We have a very nice neighborhood and I think we would all like to see some
improvements.
Sincerely,
Mike Meiby
�iys l�►%7� S7: N.f
t� ► FruC F � �� ���4t,-- �c G A�A��
w wA-iv7'
IL C
C 4A
rt
c�S � MC fel
��, �� �. 19�1���g(1.A>�� �- 1 o G� it •
A 9AI4 ,L- fd c 1� y
'
r,&"-.7Aal
ALSo My twlfK lc i -►orf wr,�
c,e,Qf-7 fT�h T
April 22, 1999
Kirk Scherer - Jody Jakubik
8145 Ruth St. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Petitioners:
Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use
applicants within 10 days if their applications are complete. We received an application
for a variance on April 16, 1999. This letter serves to inform you that your application is
complete.
Your variance application hearing, discussion, and action will take place at the City of
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting on May 12, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers at 6431 University Avenue.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact
me at 572-3593.
Sincerely,
Paul Bolin
Planning Assistant
PB
C-99-81
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: V I4S- �.►f7k Sz, N.iz
Property Identification Number.
Legal Description: Lot /a I Block z1 Tract/Addition
Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage:
Reason for Variance: uyAo-r A c ovWoO , e�nnit dir- 417-
�N "rt '& }�L,;" (k. zo 4-- Nrf.& La -r `guKA 9/a° �-5Of 6444.
VAA4/► A
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No Y 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:
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DAT • .
PETITIONER INFORMATION
NAME: 7"Yo0y ' 1�, i1L - r �►-� Sc�
ADDRESS: 5/L/Ai., i# '5T NX
DAYTIME PHONE: &/v-79Y-57zy1' SIGNATURE/DATE: _
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs:
Fee: $60.00 for reside tial prop sties: Receipt #: Received By:
Application Number.
Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: 6-1-Z - T2
Scheduled City Council Date:.
10 Day Application Complete Notification Date:
60 Day Date:
City Qf Fridley Land Use
Application Pro
Application Dai
60 Day Window S
60 Day Agency Action Law
e Planning Commission Meeting
St
Recommendation to Council
21-40 Days
Application Complete
10 Day Notice
Public Hearings:
Variance
Vacations
Lot Splits
Plats
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
Wetland Replacements
Comprehensive Plan
'Special. Use Permits
cess
City Council Decision
Approval or Denial
50-60 Days t
Approved, Action Taken Letter
i
Tabled, 80 More Days
i
� Denied
Public Hearings:
Rezonings
Zoning Amendments
4
CITY OF FRIIJLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION
TO:
Residents within 350 feet of 8145 Ruth Street
CASE NUMBER:
VAR #99-06
APPLICANT:
Jody Jakubik — Kirk Scherer
8145 Ruth Street
Fridley, MN 55432
Petitioner or representative must be at meeting.
PURPOSE:
To decrease the front yard setback from 35 feet to 27 feet for
the construction of a covered deck and to increase the
maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28%
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY AND
8145 Ruth Street
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6, Block 4, Bourdeaux's Springbrook Addition
DATE AND TIME OF
Appeals Commission Meeting, Wednesday, May 12, 1999,
HEARING:
at 7:30 p.m.
The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the
night of the meeting on Channel 35.
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 Scott Hickok,
Planning Coordinator, or Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant, at
6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at
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 572-3500 no
later than May 7, 1999,
ANY QUESTIONS:
Contact Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or
Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593.
Mailing Date: May 5, 1999
VENNE ROBERT E & ETHEL J MITCHELL JAMES D & MARY K SEERY ROBERT J & KRISTIN G
8118 RUTH ST NE 8120 RUTH CIR NE 8121 FAIRMONT CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CARLSON GINGER L
8121 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BLOMKER ALLEN D
8131 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
ST CYR GLEN R & GLORIA J
8140 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
JONES STANLEY C & BARBARA A
8151 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MALMBORG MICHAEL A
8160 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
STREICH WALTER L & JULIE
8125 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
HANSEN GREGORY W & BRENDA
8135 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MASON DENNIS & LAVONNE M
8141 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
CURRENT RESIDENT
8160 ASHTON AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
STAMMERS JAMES J & CAROLINE
8161 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
LAMB PRISCILLA M
8131 FAIRMONT CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MCLEAN MICHAEL D
8140 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
JAKUBIK JODY J
8145 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BURRIS ROBERT A & S K TRUSTEES
8160 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
HUNA PATRICK J & MARIA A
8171 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MAKIE MARVIN D & TOIVO & C SCHACHER WILLIAM P & JEAN M FRIDLEY CITY OF
8181 RUTH CIR NE 8191 RUTH CIR NE Bad Address 1
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 0
LAMUSGA WARREN M & BELINDA MCCOLLOW JOHN OWEN & SHARON BIELAWSKI ADAM P & WAKI KAREN
195 HUGO ST NE 200 HUGO ST NE 273 ELY ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BENSON JAMES D & MARIA B
281 ELY ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
RENNERT MICHAEL J & LAVONNE A
295 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
ZACZKOWSKI RONALD & JANET
314 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
STOLT JUDITH A
331 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
BETZ DEBRA K
341 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
JACOBSEN CARL W & DAWN A
358 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
TOMPKINS ANTHONY G & C JONI
8026 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
WRIGHT ERICK L
8087 FAIRMONT CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
KOLLER MARK D & LISA M
289 ELY ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
JAZDZEWSKI D J & BECKLUND S J
308 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
OFFICER RALPH I & SYRIE Y
315 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
WASSERMAN ALVIN R & LISA M
340 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
HARRIS LEONARD D & LINDA C
350 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY CITY OF
6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
KARNES DAVID B & DEBBIE A
8066 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MELBY MICHAEL D
8100 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MILLER DENNIS W & MICHELE
295 ELY ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
SKRANDIES KURT & HILDEGARD
311 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
POSS TERRENCE A & PATRICIA
321 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MYERS MARLYS J
341 ELY ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
RYAN IRENE D
355 HUGO ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
PIERCE KENT G & THERESA
8020 RUTH ST NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
SHIPSHOCK FRANCES
8071 FAIRMONT CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRITCH ROBERT M & JANICE M
8101 FAIRMONT CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
MILANOVICH ROBERT L DUNLAP JOHN & MARLYS BRUVOLD PEDER A & SALLY E
8101 RUTH CIR NE 8111 FAIRMONT CIR NE 8111 RUTH CIR NE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432
,_ �
bL
� I k
p I II I h $,
i
�IIIIV'I III I III � �� 11 ! I ' I
I
!II V I I
I
I I I
I
3
�I !• I 3 Q
lu
/
Jill
E
I
JSP hr N m h
'i 0 tt V o N N
Z4p Vd �]
rv3d aaeM.9
a
} +
1N n
0 ti
N
! 2N
CIL
oC,
F � 133]115 H1�d' 'g
W Z.m� ZJo
1—
N
N �\ 3rl'I,J.Isa odd