Loading...
Porch LetterBuberl, Jolene From: Jones, Julie Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:18 PM To: Buberl, Jolene Subject: FW: Brillhart Remodel Plan I think you should scan this and the attached plan (I will have to forward the original email to you so you can open it) into the records of 83d W Moore Lal<e Dr. From: Jones, Julie Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM To: 'Brillhart, Kelli' Cc: Hickok, Scott; Stromberg, Stacy; Jensen, David Subject: RE: Brillhart Remodel Plan Kelli, I was able to pull everyone on staff involved in your case together briefly this morning to analyze the facts. We have determined that we have no evidence proving whether or not your porch was part of the original house and attached garage construction in 1958. Therefore, we are going to allow you to complete the remodeling of the porch space once the required building permits are obtained without a variance, but you cannot expand the existing porch footprint. You will not be able to build a new deck (as this is an expansion) off of the porch until you provide a survey by a certified surveyor and we can determine that the new deck can be built at least 7' from the side property line. Before you can be granted a building permit to construct the deck, you will need to apply for a non-conforming expansion permit, which has a$200 fee, but is approved by staff internally without going through a public hearing process. The lot survey is required for this application also. Please be aware that until you can provide proaf otherwise, your property is considered illegal non-conforming. It will be wonderful if a survey proves otherwise, but without that evidence, staff is proceeding with the evidence that we have that indicates your house and garage do not meet east side setback requirements. Please proceed with obtaining the necessary permits, so you can achieve your goal of completing this project this fall. Julie Jones From: Brillhart, Kelli [mailto:kelli.r.brillhart@medtronic.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:36 PM To: Jones, Julie Subject: Brillhart Remodel Plan Julie, Good afternoon. Attached is a statement that my husband and I are respectfully submitting to the City of Fridley for consideration. We hope we can agree on this and move forward with our remodel project. Please let me know what the next steps might be. I look forward to hearing from you. Kelli Brillhart >>,� Medtrouic 33.1� - ri , �r � �.1����3� � t 3t��t) ^��.ne<< t `�; �v°-w , >>132� rs � ° � i� ,_ '� �� ., Kelli.r.brillhart@medtronic.com medtronic.com '- Facebook ��: Linkedln � TwiYter ': YouTube , 4,� } �:°. S � N= ,, FLIRTHF,R, TOGI:T�IF.R To the City of Fridley Planning Department Attn: Julie Jones Issue: At issue is whether we, John and Kelli Brillhart, have the right to convert an existing sun room/porch ("Area") into an official dining room. The City of Fridley is currently claiming that this Area is a non- livable space and any improvement of the Area is an expansion of an existing nonconformity and would require us to go through the variance process to improve our home but we respectfully disagree as indicated below. Based on the facts set forth in this message, we request that the City of Fridley reconsider and agree that the Area has always been a Livable Area. As such, we would not be required to obtain a variance as we would not be expanding an existing nonconformity but rather improving an existing Livable Area. Background: The home located at 830 W Moore Lake Drive NE, Fridley MN 55432 (the "Real Property") was built by the original owners in 1959 and apparently was built too close to the property line, creating a setback issue. The City determined that we are grandfathered in and are not required to change the footprint of the Real Property. We purchased the Real Property in 2009 and in August 2016, we started to improve the Area with the plan to replace the windows of the Area with more energy efficient windows, add a sliding glass door to replace more windows and to add a deck to the south of the house (this deck does not affect the setback issue). The City of Fridley has indicated that we could put the Area back to its original state as that would not be an expansion of an existing nonconformity. We contend that we can improve the Area as described as this is not an expansion but rather an improvement of an existing Livable Area. Discussion: During a meeting with the City of Fridley planner, it was suggested that the Area may not be a Living Area as defined in the Fridley City Codel. This is a different determination than the one made by the City of Fridley Building Inspector. The Inspector told us by phone that the Area was a Living Area. We believe that the Area is a Living Area based on the definition and due to the way it was constructed, including having framed in windows, insulation in the walls, ceiling and floor. Not only does this space meet the definition of Living Area it also meets the definition of Habitable Space according to the State of Minnesota Residential Building Codes. We reasonably assumed that we were allowed to maintain and improve the space as part of our Real Property. We use this Living Area year round, as an extension of our kitchen and dining space, for eating meals, preparing meals, having family gatherings, and a play room for the kids. We wanted to take this Living Area and improve it to be a nicer Living Area by replacing the windows as is our right. This will improve ' Living Area as defined by the Fridley City Code Chapter 205.03.51 —The Area of a dwelling unit designed to be used for living purposes including bedrooms, dining room, living room and the like, which are usually and customarily used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type of accessory space. the functionality, safety and value of the home as a whole. The previous windows did not meet energy efficiency standards leaving the Area cold in the winter which made heating bills astronomical. The new windows will improve the Living Area by adding in new more efficient windows of a different size that will improve security, privacy and be energy efficiency. We believe the proposed use of the Living Area as our official dining room does not need a variance as we are not expanding the existing space and it is a Living Area as defined by the City of Fridley and the State of Minnesota. Understanding that the Area is and was a Livable Area we are allowed to improve and update our existing structure, regardless of where property lines are and the current required setbacks . . We have come to this situation because the contractor we hired failed to pull the required building permits before he started work. That is his fault and the contractor has stated this will be corrected before work begins again on our home. Had the permits been filed with the City of Fridley the city would then have had the chance to see that the setback issue is a nonissue because the Area was an existing Living Area. We ask the City of Fridley to please review the facts presented and agree that the Area was a Livable Space and we are allowed to improve and update that Livable Area as planned. We look forward to your response.