The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 00-02O CInOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE March 15, 2000 George Sroka 1363 53`d Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Dear Mr. Sroka: On March 6, 2000, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #00-02, to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53`d Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to the construction of the addition. 2. The exterior finish and shingles on the expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. The garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind the addition due to a 10 - foot setback requirement for living space. You have one year from the date of the City Council 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 572-3599. Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the Ci of F idley Planning Department by March 29, 2000. SH:Is oncur with actfr, to `51 I anroF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE March 15, 2000 George Sroka 1363 53`d Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Dear Mr. Sroka: On March 6, 2000, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #00-02, to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53rd Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to the construction of the addition. 2. The exterior finish and shingles on the expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. The garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind the addition due to a 10 - foot setback requirement for living space. You have one year from the date of the City Council 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 572-3599. Please review the above action, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley Planning Department by March 29, 2000. SH:Is Concur with action taken FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6.2000 PAGE 14 Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Council would have to make a record and have reasons for denial in the record based on what before them. A voluntary withdrawal on the part of the applicant would be very defensiblecourt. They would not have to deal with adequacy or inadequacy of anything that may be o the record for basis of denial. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIVG AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS Y. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if the need to include in the motion that the variance request has been withdrawn. 1 Mr. Knaak stated that the letter is alreadythe record and the minutes should reflect the fact that it has been accepted. They do not need o do this by formal resolution. It is enough to state that it has been withdrawn upon the request q the applicant and that the City accepts that. They could make an affirmative motion to remove 't from the agenda to take focused action, but it is not necessary. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the railroad Mr. Hickok stated that they have been cleaned NEW BUSINESS: 19. in Spikers parking lot have been cleaned up. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt resolution No. 25-2000. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAY �R JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 20. VARIANCE REOUEST. VAR #00-02. BY GEORGE SROKA, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 5 FEET TO 2 FEET 6 INCHES TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1363 - 53" AVENUE N.E. (WARD 2): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request for the property at 1363 - 53'd Avenue. Mr. George Sroka, the petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches in order to construct an 11 foot 4 inch by 28 foot long garage expansion at 1363 - 53'd Avenue. City Code requires a minimum side yard setback from the garage to the property line at 5 feet. The petitioner's hardship is stated as "Presently all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 15 garage." Adjacent to the garage, the neighboring home has its living area. That living area is approximately 12 feet from the lot line. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance request. Initially, the petitioners were asking for a two and one-half foot sideyard setback. Historically, the City has granted a variance for two and one-half feet from the lot line. The new survey revealed that the garage would be six inches closer to the lot line, meaning that it would be two feet from the lot line and six inches closer than the City has ever gone with a variance. Staff recommended concurrence with the Appeals Commission on the denial of the variance. Alternatives to the variance exist. The garage could be built at the two foot six dimension that was originally requested within the parameters with what has previously been granted. The revised request is not within those previously granted dimensions and would be setting a precedent. Staff recommended that if the variance was granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok to explain the Stipulation No. 5 about the ten -foot living space. He asked if there was living space there now. Mr. Hickok stated that behind the existing garage there is a porch. If the variance was granted, it should be clear that the porch should not carry over to the side property line. Ms. Lonnie Sroka, sister of the petitioner, George Sroka, stated that she was confused. She said she did not realize that she had an option of going to two feet and six inches. That option was fine. She did think they had a problem with that. Ms. Sroka brought some drawings illustrating the existing house and garage plans. They wanted to modify what is existing for the garage and then attach another garage attached to the existing to match with the same materials. The house was originally built with no garage but it was added later. Presently, according to the zoning ordinance it is a requirement now to have a two car garage, so it is not compliant. A survey was done, and they found that everything is a bit skewed on the lot and the neighbor's lots. She does not know who really meets the five foot setback from the lot line requirement within the Swanstrom Court development when it was first built. A survey shows another neighboring lot that had received the variance for a precedent setting setback on the same street. One neighbor's house has a setback for a garage at 5.3 feet, but there is a slab that comes over farther than that so the vehicles are actually closer to the property line. They meet the 13 foot acceptable distance between the buildings, but they do not meet the 22 foot garage addition. Ms. Sroka stated that she felt that zoning really regulates the density of the area of the neighborhood. She did not believe that she would affect the character of the neighborhood by adding this garage. The original garage was put on with no building permit, and no inspections FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 16 were done. The problem with doing the construction one way is that there is a full basement that may be affected. That could add a lot of money to the cost. Pricing out just adding the garage stall next to the existing one is very expensive coming to about $18,000 which is about $58.00 per square foot. If they have to go in and underpin and not add as much square footage, tear the roof off, and put new trusses on, the cost would be about $83.00 per square foot. It would add about a third to the cost by doing it that way. She would be very happy to stay 2 feet 6 inches away from the property line if she could do that. Mr. George Sroka, 1363 - 53`d Avenue, stated that he appreciates all of his sister's work. He was a custodial engineer working at a Minneapolis school for seven years and now also works part- time at the Minneapolis library. Mayor Jorgenson asked if they went to a single car garage and not move the load bearing wall versus a double garage, if they would be able to stay fairly close to the variance requirements. Ms. Sroka stated that if the wall was removed they might as well rip that part off. That would be doable, but it adds about a third more to the cost. She said she was amazed at how expensive it is. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she may find with inspection, that the garage that was put in there without a permit is substandard. There may be some repair work in order to keep it. Ms. Sroka stated that she is hoping to leave as much of the existing garage there and add on to that. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Hickok if the City discovers, through inspections, that the existing garage is without a permit and substandard, if they will they have to repair that. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Because they are placing new demands on the original foundation the garage would have to be built to a new and modern standard, whether or not they go with the option that adds on or they tear it down and build a new foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she wants to make sure there is not a misunderstanding that if the petitioner just adds another parking stall, if the other portion does not meet code, they will still have to make some modifications. Ms. Sroka stated that the only place that they would do tampering with the existing garage would be at the foundation away from the basement foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that by adding on to the existing structure they would still have to meet the codes. Ms. Sroka asked if she finds something wrong with the foundation in that spot it would still have to meet code. Mayor Jorgenson stated that was correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 17 Ms. Sroka stated that Mr. Sroka bought the house for $83,500. His tax assessment last year was $105,000. They are looking at quite a bit of money in relation to percentage of what it would cost to do this and it is a concern. Mr. Sroka's salary is $35,000 per year, and it would be a big stretch for him to do that. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Sroka what the width of the garage would be by going two and one-half feet away from the lot line. Ms. Sroka stated that it makes it 10 feet six inches. Councilmember Billings asked if it would work to put a garage in the backyard and add a driveway around the house. Ms. Sroka stated that she would have to take down some nice trees to do that, and there is no alleyway. The house is built on an easement, and there is an easement in the back. There is a standard oil easement in the front so it is already not built within zoning ordinances. The back has an easement, and the property slopes downhill there. Councilmember Billings asked if the sloping roof was going to stay and if there would be a flat roof on the new garage. Ms. Sroka stated that the roof would be a gable filling in the end portion with a structure and carrying that ridge line across with new trusses going from front to back. She is trying to match the character of the existing house. Councilmember Billings asked if the existing structural wall that is there would stay in place. The inside of the garage would only be 10 feet 6 inches wide. Ms. Sroka stated that was correct. She spoke with the neighbor as soon as she got the survey in and talked with her about how close things were. Councilmember Wolfe asked if she would have to go back to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that Council has the final authority to make the modification of the variance request. Ms. Sroka stated that if she could find another solution to shorten it, she would come in and do whatever she can to get it away from the property line. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the option presented tonight was presented to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that there was discussion about the different types of designs but the two foot setback was new to them that evening. They were a bit concerned about the new numbers and their inability to react to that and to think through what the locations might be. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 18 Ms. Sroka stated that the new survey she had came in the same day of the Appeals Commission meeting. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok if that meeting would have been different if the request was for two feet six inches for the setback. Mr. Hickok stated that he thinks the Commission is always more comfortable acting within the bounds of what they have done before. The Commission talked about the idea of taking out the wall of the existing garage and the new addition. He has concerns from a design perspective that moving the garage this close to the property line means a number of compromises. This includes having a gable at one end and a hip at the other end, an overhang at one end and not at the other end, having an internal wall in the garage versus basically rebuilding the garage properly and not having an internal wall. At five feet of setback the garage would be 23.1 feet in width. Standard new two car garage construction typically is a 22 foot wide garage as the standard. This would be 23 feet at five feet of setback and the petitioners could have the hip to match the other hip and have an overhang to match the other side. The Appeals Commission had concerns about design and trying to put on an addition to the garage versus taking it down and doing it in such a way that it would look right. Mr. Burns asked if the design was really the issue here. It seems to him the issue is setback. Mr. Hickok stated that setback is the issue and if they want to do a gable end on one end and a hip on the other that is fine but those are products of granting a variance and of being closer to the lot line than they normally would. He concluded that makes the design relevant. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the structure would have footings if the petitioners went the way Mr. Hickok was talking about. Mr. Hickok stated that with a garage that was built without a permit to begin with, they would be most satisfied with that implement. Ms. Sroka stated that she does not think the house looks bad with the gable and the hip on the other end. The neighborhood has both hips and gables. She does not think anybody in her block meets the five foot requirement for setbacks. The house that got the variance for 2 feet 2 inches is right down the block. That also has two garage doors that is separated with an end piece. They are trying to build a second garage without it costing a lot of money. The way they approached it makes sense. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was a gable on one end and a hip on the other end for a neighboring house. Ms. Sroka stated that the garage was on the front of the house and the roof changes. She asked what the process was for the request. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council would make the final decision this evening or they could request it to be tabled for more time for other possibilities. Her only concern is that when they FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 19 get in there and start working on the load bearing wall if they will find that it was not built per code. Ms. Sroka stated that they would only be excavating in two areas. It was built in 1959 and has not settled at this point. Mayor Jorgenson asked when the garage was put on. Ms. Sroka stated that she thinks that the garage was put on a year later. Ms. Stella Sroka, mother of Lonnie and George Sroka, stated that the original builders are not around anymore but she is sure that it was done right and they were very well known. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was a possibility to look at one of the City's low interest loans or grants because of Mr. Sroka's income. Mr. Hickok stated that if Council is compelled to give them time to investigate that, that is certainly something they can answer. Ms. Sroka asked if they were low interest loans. Mr. Burns stated that it was at five percent. Ms. Sroka stated that they could look at what else could possibly be done for this project. Mayor Jorgenson stated that they could look at the potential resale value and it sounds like there is a little more work that needs to be done on the internal wall issue. Giving 60 more days would give more time to explore housing loans available through the City if they would choose to table this until March 20. Councilmember Barnette stated that he feels that this is a family coming to them to improve their property and neighborhood rules and we should take their time to do that. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Variance Request #00-02. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Variance Request #00-02 to have the setback read from five feet to three feet. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Councilmember Billings stated that several years ago they approved a change in the zoning ordinance to allow the expansion of garages to within three feet of the property line. They put a stipulation in that the maximum width be 22 feet. The intent of the legislation was that if they were going to be creating a variance from the standard operating procedure that it not be strictly for the sake of someone wanting to build a 60 foot wide garage or a 40 foot wide garage door. A variance from five feet to three feet would be in keeping with something that is reasonable based FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 20 on what they have done in the past. How the petitioner finances should not be a determining factor on whether or not they pass a variance. Mayor Jorgenson asked Ms. Sroka if she understands the motions. Ms. Sroka stated that he is saying that they can go to three feet and work it out and figure out how to do it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend the variance request by including the stipulations as follows: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Jorgenson asked for a vote on the main motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21. Mr. Burns stated that the City now hks $52,000,000 worth of new construction this year. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she rece0fd a letter about taking part in the year 2000 census. She urged all citizens of Fridley to partake" the census. It is very critical for the City and school districts for funding. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. still could get a ticket. Mr. Flora reminded everyone that the park on City streets from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. remind people that it is still snow season, and they ice is effective until May 1 with no parking of whether or not there is snow. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he wanted tcongratulate Carrie Varichek, a Fridley High School student in gymnastics. She advanced to th State tournament. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the February 9, 2000, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Jon Tynjala, Kenneth Vos, Blaine Jones Members Absent: Carol Beaulieu Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planner Lonnie Sroka, 3400 Hares St. N.E. Alison Sroka, 1363 53r Avenue N.E. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 26. 2000, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the January 26, 2000 Appeals Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00- 02, BY GEORGE SROKA: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53rd Avenue MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Tynjala, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Bolin, Planning Assistant, stated the petitioner's hardship states: "Presently all of the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single garage." APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated that staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. Variance #94-12 granted at 6830 Washington Street allowed the setback to be reduced to 2.2 feet for a garage expansion. Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to the construction of the addition. 2. Exterior finish and shingles on the expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. The garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition to a 10 foot setback requirement for living space. Mr. Bolin stated there is a porch area behind the existing portion of the garage. The fifth stipulation states that they do not want to see the building plan altered to extend that porch out so that it is within the ten foot encroachment of the living area. The petitioner's plans indicate the it is all going to be a garage so that should not be a problem. The petitioner's new site plan shows that the garage currently sits approximately 13.3 feet from the side yard. The new site plan also shows that with the 11 foot addition onto the garage, it will then sit 2 feet 6 inches back from the property line. The neighboring property does sit ten feet back from the property line. Mr. Kuechle stated that there was some consideration for changing City Code because there are so many situations in the City where people wish their single car garage could be converted into a two car garage. This usually gets the garage too far into the five foot setback requirement. Mr. Bolin stated that the City Code was changed a few years back to address this issue. The caveat to the Code reads that you can come to within three feet of the property line if you are expanding a single car garage into a double car garage. The total width of the new garage should not exceed 22 feet. In this case, they are over 25 feet so it would require this garage to be set back five feet rather than three feet if it were only 22 feet across. They looked at other options for this property as far as garage location. With the walk -out, there really is no other place to put this expansion. Dr. Vos stated that the new survey states that the garage corner in the front to the lot line is 13.3 feet and in the back is 13.7 feet. Ms. Lonnie Sroka, 3400 Hayes St. N.E., stated that the original survey she had was from the City. They are not ten feet from the property line on the other side and that house is not ten feet from the property line either. They are 10.7 feet away. In the front. they would be down to two feet, and in the back they would be down to 2.2 feet. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 3 Dr. Vos stated that the reason he brought that up is that they are going to be giving a variance request to a certain point. If they say that 2.6 feet away from the lot line is okay, they are not going to get an 11.4 garage in there. They are losing six inches which is enough of a garage to cause a problem. Ms. Sroka stated that the survey does state that the addition is closer to the property line. Mr. Jones asked if it was within Code if they moved the garage within three feet. Mr. Bolin stated that there would not be a need for the variance if they kept the total width of the garage under 22 feet or less. The new survey will change the request by two feet. That is not within previously granted dimensions. Ms. Sroka stated that if the house didn't have the hip coming down and bearing on that wall, then they would have approached it in a totally different way. The houses in the neighborhood are not right next to each other. They sort of step down which also helps to create a sense of privacy. Everybody on the street has a two car garage. Dr. Vos asked Ms. Sroka if the existing west wall was going to be left as is and then they would put another bay next to it with some entrance to get from one part of the garage to the other. Ms. Sroka stated they would actually do a gable on the end. Mr. Tynjala stated there is a steep drop-off there so stepping down would not work out. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Bolin if he heard anything from the neighbors. Mr. Bolin stated they had two calls. Both were just curious and were seeking clarification about what was going to happen. They did not oppose the variance. Ms. Sroka stated that the neighbor next door is not opposed. Dr. Vos asked if it was true that the neighbor next door cannot build any closer than ten feet to the lot line because it was a living area. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Dr. Vos stated that the building would not really affect their ability to build out to the east. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. Dr. Vos stated that granting this variance would set a precedent. The original plans looked like there would be 2.5 feet. The most they have ever granted is 2.2 feet and now they are down to 2 feet because of the survey. Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend denial because all the required codes could be met here. The existing garage is 14.8 feet and, according to the survey, the petitioner can add another 8.3 which will allow a garage width of a little over 23 feet. That would be a pretty reasonable amount for a two car garage. There are fairly clear alternatives to meet the code requirements. Mr. Jones stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Kuechle. It is not clear to him that there is an alternative because of the roof structure. You can prop up some beams and microlams to carry those loads and still meet the code. He is inclined to vote against the variance. Mr. Tynjala stated that he is wavering in terms of setting a precedence. He is not overly concerned about the fact that they are talking about a couple of inches. Dr. Vos stated that one of the things the petitioner has to show is a hardship. He sees the hardship in the fact that the garage probably cannot be built to the back because of the way the land drops off. Ms. Sroka stated that they did look at that option. They were looking at maybe putting in a driveway going around to the back. It really does not make sense to make all of these modifications for a second garage for a little house that is only worth so much money. She would rather try to get a variance and add a bay rather than go through all of this construction. Dr. Vos stated that economics is not a hardship. Ms. Sroka stated that at a certain price it does not make sense to spend that kind of money; then you might as well buy another home that already has a double car garage. She has not had the structural engineers plans priced out yet. She could have both plans priced out and bring them back. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #00-02, by George Sroka to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53�d Avenue UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Kuechle stated this variance request would go to City Council on March 6. Mr. Jones stated that it might be beneficial for Ms. Sroka to talk with the Fridley Remodeling Advisor. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Mr. Bolin gave a verbal update of Planning Commission and City Council actions. Mr. Bolin stated that the Appeals Commission members will be receiving a draft copy of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Dacy will be at the March 8 meeting to discuss any questions they might have on the plan. Mr. Bolin asked the Appeals Commission if they would like to meet on March 8 to go over the comprehensive plan if there are no other items for discussion. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought they should. Mr. Bolin stated that the Planning Commission will meet on April 5 for a full public hearing on the Comprehensive plan. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bolin stated that the February 23 Appeals Commission is canceled. Dr. Vos asked if the front yard setback questions were resolved for the ordinances. Mr. Bolin stated that three ordinances are being updated by staff, and one of them is concerning this issue. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED MOTION CARRIED AND MEETING OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sig a L. John n dg Recording Secretary City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR -00-02 February 9, 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: George Sroka 1363 53rd Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance Purpose: To decrease the required side yard setback from 5' to 2'6" to allow a garage expansion. Existing Zoning: Residential - 1 Location: 1363 53rd Avenue NE Size: 9,405 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 Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) requires a minimum side yard setback of 5' for a garage. Zoning History: Lot platted in 1959. Home built in 1959. Legal Description of Property: Lotl4, Block 2, Swanstrom Ct. Add. Council Action: March 6, 2000 Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Home is accessed via 53'd Avenue. Physical Characteristics: Lot is covered by urban landscape, home and existing garage. SUMMARY OF PROJECT Petitioner is seeking variance to expand existing single car garage into a two car garage. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP `Presently, all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single garage. "(Full letter attached) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street (View of existing garage) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin VAR #00-02 Analysis George Sroka, petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5' to 2'6" in order to construct an 11'4" wide by 28' long garage expansion at 1363 53'd Avenue NE. The home is a walkout style built on a steep slope and constructing a "two deep" garage expansion would not be feasible. The slopes also prevent the petitioner from constructing a detached garage in the rear yard. The home was built in 1959 with a single car garage, as code allowed. In the petitioners accompanying written narrative and hardship statement, the petitioner states, "lots having a minimum area of 9,000 square are required to have a double garage. This action would put the lot in compliance." To clarify this code section, staff points out that the petitioners home is currently in compliance with all zoning code requirements. The double garage requirement only applies to new construction. Staff Recommendation City Staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street Setback reduced to 2.2' for a garage expansion. Stipulations City staff recommends that if the variance is granted that the following stipulations be attached to approval. 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition. 2. Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. Garage shall not be used for any home occupations. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a 10' setback requirement for living space. CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: X Residential Commercialiindustrial Signs PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see'attached Address: 13 (i 3 5190 AMEN—Ug- HE Fit�DELY M N Property Identification Number. Legal Description: Lot 14 Block Z- Tract/Addition SWA Ksr1Lv M "L, FL r A90 i rib 0 Current Zoning: — Square footage/acreage: W T = 40 . tt G wcr Reason for Variance: t.G ESSO V 0 01 0 ser eskac. Have you operated a business in a city which required a business Ense ?!— Yes No X If Yes, which city? N A If Yes, what type of business? a 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: O X 6 5ice' O lea ADDRESS: 13 &.S SS120 V E V E f9ADeLy DAYTIME PHONE 1+ 62 a I SIGNATURE/DATE: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: Geo 6E S ROWA ADDRESS: 11 W& S75 -OLD EN V& K C— DAYTIME PHONE: Cin 5Z &1,0 1 SIGNATURE/DATE: l Section of City Code: S . g • 2 • FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: ✓ Receipt #: ,� Received By: Application Number. Scheduled Appeals Commission Date:— Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: EYAov Ve':9 �/o 6 January 9, 2000 P1 George Sroka 1363 53ra Avenue NE Fridely MN Lot 14 Block 2 Swanstrom Court Addition Variance Request I am requesting a variance for Section 5.A.2.a — Accessory Buildings and Structures/Minimum Setback requirement The goal is to add an additional garage bay to the existing single attached garage. Existing conditions: On the East side of the single-family house is an attached single car garage. The roof structure slopes to bear on the east wall. This prohibits a simple addition to the -existing bay withoutrmajorreconshucnon. Adding a full car bay would eliminate the removal of the bearing wall and roof structure of the existing garage. With the addition of the bay the side yard setback will be reduced to 2'-6' (two feet six inches). The bay is not overly generous in size and allows for interior clear dimension of 11'-0" (eleven feet). This would also allow the structure to match the street/front elevation of the existing garage with a 9'-0" (nine foot) garage door and brick side wall. East adjacent lot has the living component of the neighboring house located 10 feet from the property line. The distance of the neighboring house and property line has not been survey but was measured on site. Presently, all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single wage. Per Section 5 Parking Requirements of the 205.07.06 lots having a minimum area of 9,000 square are required to have a double garage. This action would put the lot in compliance. Granting of the variance would: • Allow the vehicles presently in the driveway and stored off site (keeps. fishing_ boat.atlOarents house so as not to clutter the yard), to be housed on site. • Does not create a condition that is uncharacteristic of the existing neighborhood • Puts the structure in compliance with the parking ordinance requirements. January 9, 2000 P2 George Sroka 1363 53rd Avenue NL Fridely MN Lot 14 Block 2 Swanstrom Court Addition Zoning R 1 One -Family Dwelling District Regulations Lot Area Minimum requirement 9,000 square feet • Actual 117.55 a 80 x,405 square feet Lot Wi,*h Seventy-five feet 75 • Actual width eighty feet - 80 Lot Coverage Not greater than 25% of lot area • 25% of 9,405 is 2,350 square feet • Present coverage 1,585 square feet with garage addition 1,910 square feet Setbacks Front yard 35 feet - Actual 35 feet Side yard Living space 10 feet — Actual 10 feet Accessory use 5 feet or 3 feet if garage is less than 22 feet wide — Actual side yard is 13'-10" • Requesting reduction to 2.5 feet Building requirements Basements are required Minimum floor area 1,020 square feet - Actual 1160 square feet Lots with areas of 9,000 square feet are required to have a double car garage - Does not meet requirement Height - accessory building 14 feet Height - main structure 30 feet Ux� . IRS's -0 d/ rt , j"� t � • Z 4.D�•.Y' i� .'i 4 �' , .S t •. ��tiyr�uRWLYOR i � f {L . um Fk �i�41Mr OK PT*M, W WINN ! A r` c�Sa, �>ay�D R/ dlttsIM�-: A1(wCITY OF, �1i1NllRJI�CM.IO r �•��t r '•ti, ti 4••�+�� .r 4 r'l,.k✓ . .nY ., r • •,�, i. f T "t •l�:L: LRk .�" �l �7 _a• yc;. � , i.... �� :'J 3, >.. , o r •^i � L S� .�` , e4 s?j� i�'Rtt1ET. r rho PA r 474e4�1 a' Vis•rF B' a, aba:�l!";$,,,4-,., L. 4 r •». !�� > •; ,y�. r • �� t ty r fife rs ��Y• f / . . smot*, Ig �(r4«IMiwi�tri ` •.. •ter 9ry '' .,r�� t•C,j,t - low*, L Ap -F- ♦ c ��_•��s Y+s,it �TP�r iiL� c'�v'.ir l_ r•s., �y,� �,�] - /,,�gy, .. . .i: _.•�� m'•B7•'�•i: ... ,i., t. .y �. T �F�`iJg7;fo a - 4 - `- ' ,�44' �_ •.: "' Prof ° '�� .• �..% -1 - o ._ � , ,per ; ` � : $ �; � __..�_�____._-- � a � ro • ^ I ,- � N ,•��Cl a.r 3 S c�G 1 _ 1 4 '.D� R .♦ eF' b ` � s..�- �l • S � y :St r � Xve. /n/r'_ IA to �lV� if A"ikU[ AND ODRRRCT p1.AT Ow A tt7RVtY O!� r" •• kK Iit ,♦� ' � 64 s t T,1� j �, 1Jlr�'��'�'-, � r' of ♦ +N •^, 7rn•" v 1 v �♦ '.`a S4' i" 4�+ W�S,�.' `.•. - f dnf Y' 7Ppfid tM x✓ a' yy�. .` PAUE 1959 — y P °TNI Q4 i,L�: DAY-CW--_7' r •.D ,,� �,«�,c+,s��►'Y" .l,'♦ � ..., ,w.. i 51G'PftD �; ' dhxa 3 F. C. JACKSON. Mow a i -oha Residence Georsg.,e Sr - (Fc; r(rI'e Addi'tton CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Residents within 350 feet of 1363 53`d Avenue CASE NUMBER: VAR #00-02 APPLICANT: George Sroka 1363 531 Avenue Fridley, MN 55421 Petitioner or representative must be at meeting. PURPOSE: To reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage. LOCATION OF PROPERTYAND 1363 53' Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting, Wednesday, February 9, HEARING: 2000, 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, Planner, 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 February 2, 2000. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Paul Bolin, Planner, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: January 28, 2000 JENSEN LOIS S ZOOK DONALD L & MAJORIE F ANDINO URSULA R 1323 53RD AVE NE 1326 SKYWOOD LN NE 1331 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 CARLSON JOSEPH D 1333 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 COOK MARCITA G 1338 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 EDWARDS VERLAN E & MARY L 1344 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 MEWHORTER JUNE E 1350 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 TETTEMER CLAIR R JR 1360 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 KUGLIN LE ROY R & GERMAINE 1364 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 DOBOS JOSEPH V & LOIS A 1371 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 BARTA ROBERT A & KATHLEEN C 1377 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 WOLTER JOHN ALBERT 1336 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 BAILEY JACQUELINE A 1337 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 BAUMGARDNER FRED & POSTERICK B HOPPS KEVIN J & MARA S 1338 SKYWOOD CT NE 1343 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 HARNISCH LENARD W & YVONNE 1349 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 TRYGG THOMAS G & ALINE A 1357 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 LIDBERG ARDIS L 1361 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 HANSEN RAY W & ANITA L 1365 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 HEIKKILA REYNOLD & VICKI 1371 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 DAHLEN PHILLIP A & LADONNA 1378 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 ABRAHAMSON DAVID K & JUNE S 1349 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 LUETH JON H & MARILYN S 1358 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 SROKA GEORGE J 1363 53RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 RAINS MARY JO 1370 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 JOHNSON WAYNE S 1375 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 DRIGGS CAROLE A 1381 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 NELSON RAYMOND H & ROSE L POLLARD JOHN B & JANET A STRASSBURG JOHN W & MARY C 1385 53RD AVE NE 1385 SKYWOOD LN NE 1386 SKYWOOD LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 15 ALBERS THOMAS R & ARLENE M SCHUPIEN RICK J & JUDY K RASMUSSEN DANIEL J & ERIKA E 1390 SKYWOOD LN NE 1391 53RD AVE NE 5237 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY, MN 55421 PETERSON EUGENE ALBERT & P 5240 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 CHRISTENSEN FREDERICK T & D 5250 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 MARIER MARY LOU B & RONALD T 5260 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 HANSON DONALD N & ARDELL C 5261 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 CUR ESIDE SuC� 529 JOHNSO ST NEree� FRID , 5432 CURRENT4kESIDENT Bad Addr s 2 FRIDLE , MN 0 ZBIKOWSKI DONALD A & D M 5241 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 MALARK RICHARD J 5251 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FANNON WILLIAM R 5260 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FAHLEY JEROME A & LAURA M 5271 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PROCACCINI VICKI L 5250 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421, HOSCH MICHAEL J & JANE M 5251 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 KRTNICK DONALD & IDA 5261 BUCHANAN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 PORTER RALPH 5297 LINCOLN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 CURRENT ESIDENT Bad Add* s 1 FRIDLE , MN 0 10 0 0 1492666 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter..of: A Variance, VAR #00-02 Owiier� George Sroka The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 6th day of March, 2000, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To reduce the required side yard setback for an aitached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an fe esgdbed as Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally at 1`3(03 53 five, IT IS ORDERED that a varianc be grbgr ed as upon a Iowing condition or.easons: Approval with 5 stipulations. a City Council meeting minutes-offMarch 6,,2000. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY r �'1-e� a. f- Cortill -TF)iS W 4S '/- a��ins Co��cf• �.d�rrsS � S AWS G�G�G�I�C 5S v OF THE CITY CLERK • • I, Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that 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, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the oZ$fM- day of /Va UAJ '2000 DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Debra A. Skogen, City CieM��,,;•• a W' a 1 pr• �° f �.i 1 Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be considered void if not used within that period. • • Mayor Jorgenson stated that it could be used for police personnel, overtime d for grants and for capital outlay items including motor vehicles or laptop computers for pol' a cars. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that some of the grants used to hir police officers may be expiring so some of this money could be used to continue having ose police officers. In a sense this is saving taxpayers money. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, to close the member Bolkcom. Seconded by Council - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARI G WAS CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: 18. MOTION by Councilmember olfe to accept the letter of withdrawal of the variance request by Spikers Grille & Beachclub. %econded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Councilmember Bolkcom 9(sked Mr. Hickok exactly what Spikers was asking for in the letter. Mr. Hickok stated that t)1ey are withdrawing the variance request to analyze other options. Councilmember Bo loom asked if Sprikers wanted to come back at a further date would they have to starts s over. Mr. Hickok correct. CouncilmemYblin2. r Billings asked if it would make more sense for clarification for the record, that this is nota Mr. KnaaV, City Attorney, stated that the withdrawal of the request would be action on Council's part. One the request is withdrawn there is not a risk that they would somehow be approving it by not ting. If it is acknowledged as being withdrawn in the record, that should be the end of it. Coun lmember Bolkcom asked if they were to deny it, would they have to go through with the prese tation and find reasons to deny the variance request. She asked if it would make more sen to accept the letter. • Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Council would have to make a r ord and have reasons for denial in the record based on what is before them. A voluntary thdrawal on the part of the applicant would be very defensible in court. They would not ave to deal with adequacy or inadequacy of anything that may be on the record for basis of d al. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAY"y JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if they need tor de in the motion that the variance request has been withdrawn. Mr. Knaak stated that the letter is already in a record and the minutes should reflect the fact that it has been accepted. They do not need do this by formal resolution. It is enough to state that it has been withdrawn upon the reques of the applicant and that the City accepts that. They could make an affirmative motion to re ve it from the agenda to take focused action, but it is not necessary. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Hickok stated that they ha NEW BUSINESS: 19. railroad ties in Spikers parking lot have been cleaned up. cleaned up. MOTION by Cou ilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 25-2000. Seconded by Councilmember W Be. UPON A VOIC VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION C ED UNANIMOUSLY. 20. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00-02. BY GEORGE SROKA, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 5 FEET TO 2 FEET 6 INCHES TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1363 - 53RD AVENUE N.E. (WARD 2Z Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request for the property at 1363 - 53' Avenue. Mr. George Sroka, the petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches in order to construct an 11 foot 4 inch by 28 foot long garage expansion at 1363 - 53`d Avenue. City Code requires a minimum side yard setback from the garage to the property line at 5 feet. The petitioner's hardship is stated as "Presently all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 15 garage." Adjacent to the garage, the neighboring home has its living area. That living area is approximately 12 feet from the lot line. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance request. Initially, the petitioners were asking for a two and one-half foot sideyard setback. Historically, the City has granted a variance for two and one-half feet from the lot line. The new survey revealed that the garage would be six inches closer to the lot line, meaning that it would be two feet from the lot line and six inches closer than the City has ever gone with a variance. Staff recommended concurrence with the Appeals Commission on the denial of the variance. Alternatives to the variance exist. The garage could be built at the two foot six dimension that was originally requested within the parameters with what has previously been granted. The revised request is not within those previously granted dimensions and would be setting a precedent. Staff recommended that if the variance was granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok to explain the Stipulation No. 5 about the ten -foot living space. He asked if there was living space there now. Mr. Hickok stated that behind the existing garage there is a porch. If the variance was granted, it should be clear that the porch should not carry over to the side property line. Ms. Lonnie Sroka, sister of the petitioner, George Sroka, stated that she was confused. She said she did not realize that she had an option of going to two feet and six inches. That option was fine. She did think they had a problem with that. Ms. Sroka brought some drawings illustrating the existing house and garage plans. They wanted to modify what is existing for the garage and then attach another garage attached to the existing to match with the same materials. The house was originally built with no garage but it was added later. Presently, according to the zoning ordinance it is a requirement now to have a two car garage, so it is not compliant. A survey was done, and they found that everything is a bit skewed on the lot and the neighbor's lots. She does not know who really meets the five foot setback from the lot line requirement within the Swanstrom Court development when it was first built. A survey shows another neighboring lot that had received the variance for a precedent setting setback on the same street. One neighbor's house has a setback for a garage at 5.3 feet, but there is a slab that comes over farther than that so the vehicles are actually closer to the property line. They meet the 13 foot acceptable distance between the buildings, but they do not meet the 22 foot garage addition. Ms. Sroka stated that she felt that zoning really regulates the density of the area of the neighborhood. She did not believe that she would affect the character of the neighborhood by adding this garage. The original garage was put on with no building permit, and no inspections • were done. The problem with doing the construction one way is that there is a full basement that may be affected. That could add a lot of money to the cost. Pricing out just adding the garage stall next to the existing one is very expensive coming to about $18,000 which is about $58.00 per square foot. If they have to go in and underpin and not add as much square footage, tear the roof off, and put new trusses on, the cost would be about $83.00 per square foot. It would add about a third to the cost by doing it that way. She would be very happy to stay 2 feet 6 inches away from the property line if she could do that. Mr. George Sroka, 1363 - 53`d Avenue, stated that he appreciates all of his sister's work. He was a custodial engineer working at a Minneapolis school for seven years and now also works part- time at the Minneapolis library. Mayor Jorgenson asked if they went to a single car garage and not move the load bearing wall versus a double garage, if they would be able to stay fairly close to the variance requirements. Ms. Sroka stated that if the wall was removed they might as well rip that part off. That would be doable, but it adds about a third more to the cost. She said she was amazed at how expensive it is. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she may find with inspection, that the garage that was put in there without a permit is substandard. There may be some repair work in order to keep it. Ms. Sroka stated that she is hoping to leave as much of the existing garage there and add on to that. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Hickok if the City discovers, through inspections, that the existing garage is without a permit and substandard, if they will they have to repair that. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Because they are placing new demands on the original foundation the garage would have to be built to a new and modern standard, whether or not they go with the option that adds on or they tear it down and build a new foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she wants to make sure there is not a misunderstanding that if the petitioner just adds another parking stall, if the other portion does not meet code, they will still have to make some modifications. Ms. Sroka stated that the only place that they would do tampering with the existing garage would be at the foundation away from the basement foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that by adding on to the existing structure they would still have to meet the codes. Ms. Sroka asked if she finds something wrong with the foundation in that spot it would still have to meet code. Mayor Jorgenson stated that was correct. • 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 17 Ms. Sroka stated that Mr. Sroka bought the house for $83,500. His tax assessment last year was $105,000. They are looking at quite a bit of money in relation to percentage of what it would cost to do this and it is a concern. Mr. Sroka's salary is $35,000 per year, and it would be a big stretch for him to do that. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Sroka what the width of the garage would be by going two and one-half feet away from the lot line. Ms. Sroka stated that it makes it 10 feet six inches. Councilmember Billings asked if it would work to put a garage in the backyard and add a driveway around the house. Ms. Sroka stated that she would have to take down some nice trees to do that, and there is no alleyway. The house is built on an easement, and there is an easement in the back. There is a standard oil easement in the front so it is already not built within zoning ordinances. The back has an easement, and the property slopes downhill there. Councilmember Billings asked if the sloping roof was going to stay and if there would be a flat roof on the new garage. Ms. Sroka stated that the roof would be a gable filling in the end portion with a structure and carrying that ridge line across with new trusses going from front to back. She is trying to match the character of the existing house. Councilmember Billings asked if the existing structural wall that is there would stay in place. The inside of the garage would only be 10 feet 6 inches wide. Ms. Sroka stated that was correct. She spoke with the neighbor as soon as she got the survey in and talked with her about how close things were. Councilmember Wolfe asked if she would have to go back to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that Council has the final authority to make the modification of the variance request. Ms. Sroka stated that if she could find another solution to shorten it, she would come in and do whatever she can to get it away from the property line. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the option presented tonight was presented to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that there was discussion about the different types of designs but the two foot setback was new to them that evening. They were a bit concerned about the new numbers and their inability to react to that and to think through what the locations might be. • Ms. Sroka stated that the new survey she had came in the same day of the Appeals Commission meeting. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok if that meeting would have been different if the request was for two feet six inches for the setback. Mr. Hickok stated that he thinks the Commission is always more comfortable acting within the bounds of what they have done before. The Commission talked about the idea of taking out the wall of the existing garage and the new addition. He has concerns from a design perspective that moving the garage this close to the property line means a number of compromises. This includes having a gable at one end and a hip at the other end, an overhang at one end and not at the other end, having an internal wall in the garage versus basically rebuilding the garage properly and not having an internal wall. At five feet of setback the garage would be 23.1 feet in width. Standard new two car garage construction typically is a 22 foot wide garage as the standard. This would be 23 feet at five feet of setback and the petitioners could have the hip to match the other hip and have an overhang to match the other side. The Appeals Commission had concerns about design and trying to put on an addition to the garage versus taking it down and doing it in such a way that it would look right. Mr. Burns asked if the design was really the issue here. It seems to him the issue is setback. Mr. Hickok stated that setback is the issue and if they want to do a gable end on one end and a hip on the other that is fine but those are products of granting a variance and of being closer to the lot line than they normally would. He concluded that makes the design relevant. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the structure would have footings if the petitioners went the way Mr. Hickok was talking about. Mr. Hickok stated that with a garage that was built without a permit to begin with, they would be most satisfied with that implement. Ms. Sroka stated that she does not think the house looks bad with the gable and the hip on the other end. The neighborhood has both hips and gables. She does not think anybody in her block meets the five foot requirement for setbacks. The house that got the variance for 2 feet 2 inches is right down the block. That also has two garage doors that is separated with an end piece. They are trying to build a second garage without it costing a lot of money. The way they approached it makes sense. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was a gable on one end and a hip on the other end for a neighboring house. Ms. Sroka stated that the garage was on the front of the house and the roof changes. She asked what the process was for the request. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council would make the final decision this evening or they could request it to be tabled for more time for other possibilities. Her only concern is that when they • 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 19 get in there and start working on the load bearing wall if they will find that it was not built per code. Ms. Sroka stated that they would only be excavating in two areas. It was built in 1959 and has not settled at this point. Mayor Jorgenson asked when the garage was put on. Ms. Sroka stated that she thinks that the garage was put on a year later. Ms. Stella Sroka, mother of Lonnie and George Sroka, stated that the original builders are not around anymore but she is sure that it was done right and they were very well known. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was a possibility to look at one of the City's low interest loans or grants because of Mr. Sroka's income. Mr. Hickok stated that if Council is compelled to give them time to investigate that, that is certainly something they can answer. Ms. Sroka asked if they were low interest loans. Mr. Burns stated that it was at five percent. Ms. Sroka stated that they could look at what else could possibly be done for this project. Mayor Jorgenson stated that they could look at the potential resale value and it sounds like there is a little more work that needs to be done on the internal wall issue. Giving 60 more days would give more time to explore housing loans available through the City if they would choose to table this until March 20. Councilmember Barnette stated that he feels that this is a family coming to them to improve their property and neighborhood rules and we should take their time to do that. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Variance Request #00-02. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Variance Request #00-02 to have the setback read from five feet to three feet. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Councilmember Billings stated that several years ago they approved a change in the zoning ordinance to allow the expansion of garages to within three feet of the property line. They put a stipulation in that the maximum width be 22 feet. The intent of the legislation was that if they were going to be creating a variance from the standard operating procedure that it not be strictly for the sake of someone wanting to build a 60 foot wide garage or a 40 foot wide garage door. A variance from five feet to three feet would be in keeping with something that is reasonable based • on what they have done in the past. How the petitioner finances should not be a determining factor on whether or not they pass a variance. Mayor Jorgenson asked Ms. Sroka if she understands the motions. Ms. Sroka stated that he is saying that they can go to three feet and work it out and figure out how to do it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend the variance request by including the stipulations as follows: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Jorgenson asked for a vote on the main motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21. Mr. Burns stated that 1�ie City now has $52,000,000 worth of new construction this year. Mayor Jorgenson statedat she received a letter about taking part in the year 2000 census. She urged all citizens of Fri Io partake in the census. It is very critical for the City and school districts for funding. Councilmember Bolkcom asker. Flora to remind people that it is still snow season, and they still could get a ticket. Mr. Flora reminded everyone that fl�e parking ordinance is effective until May 1 with no parking on City streets from 2:00 a.m. to 6:0 a.m. regardless of whether or not there is snow. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he\wanted to congratulate Carrie Varichek, a Fridley High School student in gymnastics. She adv ced to the State tournament. ABSTANIiCT DOCUMEW140. 1492686.0 ABSTRACT ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON MAR 30 2000 AT 4:59 PM AND WAJ DULY ECORDED. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 .5 PAID. RECEIPT No, 2000024745 EDWARD M. TRESKA ANOKACOUNTYPROPE`RTY TAX TGD ADMINIS7RATOR/RECORDERIREGISTR4ROF TITLES BY DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES Receipt # 1't[�ks i�. ❑ Cartified Caoy Cam—nme:3 -.3o / ►(o S Date Mailed ❑ Tax Liens / Reieases Cac CrCer I of Q Multi -Ca Coc Tax Pd EZ .� by: Pins: Uv Recarcaeii'ity / Celgs: �C ❑ Transfer ❑ New Cesc. Hing Pees: $ 1 • 5 ❑ Division ❑ GAC Wed Cartificate ❑ Status ❑ Oef. Spec Recsnrec his Cate: Anoka County Recprcer ❑ Other �l+ No Change Notes: DOCUMEW140. 1492686.0 ABSTRACT ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD ON MAR 30 2000 AT 4:59 PM AND WAJ DULY ECORDED. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 .5 PAID. RECEIPT No, 2000024745 EDWARD M. TRESKA ANOKACOUNTYPROPE`RTY TAX TGD ADMINIS7RATOR/RECORDERIREGISTR4ROF TITLES BY DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 MY OF FRIDLEY Date: 2/29/00 J To: William Burns, City Managerd� From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner RE: Appeals Commission action on VAR #00-02 M-00-37 INTRODUCTION George Sroka, petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5' to 2' in order to construct an 11'4" wide by 28' long garage expansion at 1363 53rd Avenue NE. The home is a walkout style built on a steep slope and constructing a "two deep" garage expansion would not be feasible. The slopes also prevent the petitioner from constructing a detached garage in the rear yard. The petitioner had originally submitted a variance request down to 26", for the side yard setback, which was within previously granted dimensions. After the staff presentation at the Appeals Commission meeting, the petitioner distributed a new survey which indicated their need for a reduction down to 2' for the side yard setback. Because this new setback request is precedent setting, staffs recommendation has changed from have no recommendation to recommending denial of this request. The size of the garage expansion could be reduced to meet code or at least be within previously granted dimensions for side yard setbacks. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION At the February 9, 2000 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #00-02. After a lengthy discussion which included mention of the petitioners lack of hardship and design alternatives, the Appeals Commission voted to recommend denial of the variance request. The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends denial of Variance Request VAR #00-02, as alternatives to the variance request do exist. The revised request is not within previously granted dimensions and would be precedent setting. STIPULATIONS City Staff recommends if the variance request is granted that the following stipulations be attached to approval. 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition. 2. Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. Garage shall not be used for any home occupations. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a 10' setback requirement for living space. 104 M 13.7~ i- GARAGE -EXISTING +— HOUSE 1 14. t6.3 i N ( 1 i 1 21.801.5 io•s 3�- \ �I ♦ I. I.. !i!. 1 PIPELINE ' EASEMENT so, 00 plot 79.88 meds .1 77 0 r+'1 53 RD AVENUE NORTH ; mWam -� LEGAL DESCRIPTION Laea.�°y.rai: s a" Th ft wl waa 46404=Lot 14. Block 2• Swonstrgm's Cert ►ate Addition. Anda. Minnesota 1-d mnAT_Y&c rasa. 105 Jataan nn 'n aa.+ Certificate of Survey X for Sroka Residence 1363 53rd Ave Northeast Fridley MN, 55421 80.00 plat > o•ao� Daae ` ffF.Ct - aaa-� r DENOTES FOLIO IRON MIDI WENT "'==--UTILITY AND DRAINAGE O DENOTES SET EASEMENT ' IRON MDNLIMENT s EASEMENT$ SM PER PLAT MF SVANSTROIiI' S COW ADDITION j a r ti� p- P ....-- 13.7~ i- GARAGE -EXISTING +— HOUSE 1 14. t6.3 i N ( 1 i 1 21.801.5 io•s 3�- \ �I ♦ I. I.. !i!. 1 PIPELINE ' EASEMENT so, 00 plot 79.88 meds .1 77 0 r+'1 53 RD AVENUE NORTH ; mWam -� LEGAL DESCRIPTION Laea.�°y.rai: s a" Th ft wl waa 46404=Lot 14. Block 2• Swonstrgm's Cert ►ate Addition. Anda. Minnesota 1-d mnAT_Y&c rasa. 105 Jataan nn 'n aa.+ City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR -00-02 February 9, 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: George Sroka 1363 53`d Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance Purpose: To decrease the required side yard setback from 5' to 2'6" to allow a garage expansion. Existing Zoning. Residential - 1 Location: 1363 53rd Avenue NE Size: 9,405 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 Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) requires a minimum side vard setback of 5' for a izaraee. Zoning History: Lot platted in 1959. Home built in 1959. Legal Description of Property: Lotl4, Block 2, Swanstrom Ct. Add. Council Action: March 6, 2000 Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Home is accessed via 53rd Avenue. Physical Characteristics: Lot is covered by urban landscape, home and existing garage. SUMMARY OF PROJECT Petitioner is seeking variance to expand existing single car garage into a two car garage. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP `Presently, all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single garage. "(Full letter attached) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street Setback reduced to 2.2' for a (View of existing garage) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin 106 VAR #00-02 Analysis George Sroka, petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5' to 2'6" in order to construct an 11'4" wide by 28' long garage expansion at 1363 53rd Avenue NE. The home is a walkout style built on a steep slope and constructing a "two deep" garage expansion would not be feasible. The slopes also prevent the petitioner from constructing a detached garage in the rear yard. The home was built in 1959 with a single car garage, as code allowed. In the petitioners accompanying written narrative and hardship statement, the petitioner states, "lots having a minimum area of 9,000 square are required to have a double garage. This action would put the lot in compliance." To clarify this code section, staff points out that the petitioners home is currently in compliance with all zoning code requirements. The double garage requirement only applies to new construction. Staff Recommendation City Staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street Setback reduced to 2.2' for a garage expansion. Stipulations City staff recommends that if the variance is granted that the following stipulations be attached to approval. 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition. 2. Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. Garage shall not be used for any home occupations. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a 10' setback requirement for living space. Ga14L U rage14L M expansion area. A_ 107 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00- 02, BY GEORGE SROKA: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53rd Avenue MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Tynjala, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Bolin, Planning Assistant, stated the petitioner's hardship states: "Presently all of the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single garage." Mr. Bolin stated that staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. Variance #94-12 granted at 6830 Washington Street allowed the setback to be reduced to 2.2 feet for a garage expansion. Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to the construction of the addition. 2. Exterior finish and shingles on the expansion shall match the existing home and garage. 3. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation. 4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line. 5. The garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition to a 10 foot setback requirement for living space. Mr. Bolin stated there is a porch area behind the existing portion of the garage. The fifth stipulation states that they do not want to see the building plan altered to extend that porch out so that it is within the ten foot encroachment of the living area. The petitioner's plans indicate the it is all going to be a garage so that should not be a problem. The petitioner's new site plan shows that the garage currently sits approximately 13.3 feet from the side yard. The new site plan also shows that with the 1 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 2 11 foot addition onto the garage, it will then sit 2 feet 6 inches back from the property line. The neighboring property does sit ten feet back from the property line. Mr. Kuechle stated that there was some consideration for changing City Code because there are so many situations in the City where people wish their single car garage could be converted into a two car garage. This usually gets the garage too far into the five foot setback requirement. Mr. Bolin stated that the City Code was changed a few years back to address this issue. The caveat to the Code reads that you can come to within three feet of the property line if you are expanding a single car garage into a double car garage. The total width of the new garage should not exceed 22 feet. In this case, they are over 25 feet so it would require this garage to be set back five feet rather than three feet if it were only 22 feet across. They looked at other options for this property as far as garage location. With the walk -out, there really is no other place to put this expansion. Dr. Vos stated that the new survey states that the garage corner in the front to the lot line is 13.3 feet and in the back is 13.7 feet. Ms. Lonnie Sroka, 3400 Hayes St. N.E., stated that the original survey she had was from the City. They are not ten feet from the property line on the other side and that house is not ten feet from the property line either. They are 10.7 feet away. In the front. they would be down to two feet, and in the back they would be down to 2.2 feet. Dr. Vos stated that the reason he brought that up is that they are going to be giving a variance request to a certain point. If they say that 2.6 feet away from the lot line is okay, they are not going to get an 11.4 garage in there. They are losing six inches which is enough of a garage to cause a problem. Ms. Sroka stated that the survey does state that the addition is closer to the property line. Mr. Jones asked if it was within Code if they moved the garage within three feet. Mr. Bolin stated that there would not be a need for the variance if they kept the total width of the garage under 22 feet or less. The new survey will change the request by two feet. That is not within previously granted dimensions. Ms. Sroka stated that if the house didn't have the hip coming down and bearing on that wall, then they would have approached it in a totally different way. The houses in the neighborhood are not right next to each other. They sort of step down which also helps to create a sense of privacy. Everybody on the street has a two car garage. Dr. Vos asked Ms. Sroka if the existing west wall was going to be left as is and then they would put another bay next to it with some entrance to get from one part of the garage to the other. 109 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 3 Ms. Sroka stated they would actually do a gable on the end. Mr. Tynjala stated there is a steep drop-off there so stepping down would not work out. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Bolin if.he heard anything from the neighbors. Mr. Bolin stated they had two calls. Both were just curious and were seeking clarification about what was going to happen. They did not oppose the variance. Ms. Sroka stated that the neighbor next door is not opposed. Dr. Vos asked if it was true that the neighbor next door cannot build any closer than ten feet to the lot line because if was a living area. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Dr. Vos stated that the building would not really affect their ability to build out to the east. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. Dr. Vos stated that granting this variance would set a precedent. The original plans looked like there would be 2.5 feet. The most they have ever granted is 2.2 feet and now they are down to 2 feet because of the survey. Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend denial because all the required codes could be met here. The existing garage is 14.8 feet and, according to the survey, the petitioner can add another 8.3 which will allow a garage width of a little over 23 feet. That would be a pretty reasonable amount for a two car garage. There are fairly clear alternatives to meet the code requirements. Mr. Jones stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Kuechle. It is not clear to him that there is an alternative because of the roof structure. You can prop up some beams and microlams to carry those loads and still meet the code. He is inclined to vote against the variance. Mr. Tynjala stated that he is wavering in terms of setting a precedence. He is not overly concerned about the fact that they are talking about a couple of inches. 110 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 4 Dr. Vos stated that one of the things the petitioner has to show is a hardship. He sees the hardship in the fact that the garage probably cannot be built to the back because of the way the land drops off. Ms. Sroka stated that they did look at that option. They were looking at maybe putting in a driveway going around to the back. It really does not make sense to make all of these modifications for a second garage for a little house that is only worth so much money. She would rather try to get a variance and add a bay rather than go through all of this construction. Dr. Vos stated that economics is not a hardship. Ms. Sroka stated that at a certain price it does not make sense to spend that kind of money; then you might as well buy another home that already has a double car garage. She has not had the structural engineers plans priced out yet. She could have both plans priced out and bring them back. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #00-02, by George Sroka to reduce the required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53rd Avenue UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kuechle stated this variance request would go to City Council on March 6. Mr. Jones stated that it might be beneficial for Ms. Sroka to talk with the Fridley Remodeling Advisor. 111