Loading...
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