Loading...
VAR 24-01 -ZemkeItem 2. Land Use Application Summary Fridley Item: VAR #24-01 Meeting Date: October 16, 2024 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jason Zemke 257 69th Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance Location: 257 69th Avenue NE Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Size: 10,458 sq. ft. .24 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Community Park - P E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Guided for Single Family land use Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.03.D.2.a requires habitable space to be set back 10 feet from the property line Building and Zoning History: 1959 — Lot is platted 1962 — Building Permit issued; identifies a 10 ft side yard setback for the home 1972 — Special Use Permit approved for 2n1 garage. The survey included in application notes an as -built 7.1 setback for the home. 2002 — Variance issued to recognize the existing nonconforming structure. 192 sq ft addition constructed in rear yard. Legal Description of Property: Lot 2, Block 2, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Public Utilities: Home is connected Transportation: Property is accessed from 69th Avenue NE Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, rectangular lot that abuts Communitv Park Summary of Request: Property owner Jason Zemke requests a variance to expand an existing nonconforming building located at 257 69th Ave NE. The variance would permit an addition to the home and reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet. Staff Recommendation: City staff do not believe the request meets statutory requirements for a variance and recommend denial of the request Y Y; L" �• n V x. �I Aerial of the Property City Council Action/60 Day Action Date: City Council — November 12, 2024 60 Day Date — November 25, 2024 Staff Report Prepared by Nancy Abts F9 I Written Report - The Request Jason Zemke is the owner of the home at 257 69th Avenue NE. A previous owner built the home within the required side yard. Jason requests a variance to allow an addition to the home. The addition would encroach into the side yard, reducing the distance from the eastern property line to 6.9 feet, from the required 10-foot setback. (Garages are allowed with a five-foot side yard setback. This is because garages are uninhabited.) Site Description and History The subject property is located on 69th Avenue N.E., immediately south of Community Park. It is zoned R-1, Single Family. When the existing home was constructed in 1962, the building permit indicated a 10-foot side yard. In 1972, a Special Use Permit (SUP) was issued for a second detached garage. The SUP application materials included a drawing showing a 7.1 foot as -built setback for the home. In 2002, an eight by twenty -four -foot addition to the rear of the home was proposed. At this time, a variance was approved to acknowledge expansion of the nonconforming structure, in a way that did not increase the nonconforming setback. The addition was then built in the rear yard. (Today, this could be done with an administrative Nonconforming Expansion Permit. The permit process was adopted in 2015, in part because of issues like this.) Code Requirements and Analysis Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines in the R-1 Zoning District. State law establishes a 3-pronged analysis for variances, which is adopted in Fridley's city code. Specifically, A property owner may request a variance when the owner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with [the Zoning chapter]. An application must... state the exceptional conditions and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for a variance. A practical difficulty means: 1. The property owner proposes performance standards for the property in a reasonable manner, but not permitted by the Zoning Code. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.... The findings of fact shall contain the following: 1. The public policy which is served by the requirement; and Flo Item 2. 2. The unique circumstance of the property that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the requirement, and 3. Any stipulations of the variance approval. Summary of Practical Difficulties provided by the Petitioner "Practical Difficulties: • The proposed addition will develop and enhance the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by zoning ordinance. ■ The need for a variance is due to circumstances unique to this property and were not created by the current owner (Jason and Rochelle Zemke). ■ The requested variance will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. "Alternatives are not practical in that the proposed addition is the smallest functional footprint necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. A building addition that achieves the same functional space but that also abides by the 10'-0" side yard setback will require a larger net building addition (more square footage), more lot coverage, more expense, and would be out of character with the footprints and style of adjacent homes." Practical Difficulties Variances may be granted if practical difficulties exist on the property. Staff finds that practical difficulties are not met in this case, based on the following findings of fact: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? • A side yard setback is intended to provide adequate space between homes. This allows green space, ventilation and access. In Fridley, the Hyde Park district allows a 7.5 setback. Other more dense cities like Columbia Heights and Minneapolis commonly have side yards smaller than 10 feet. Along with lot size and width requirements, side yards also provide a consistent urban form and character. The addition is proposed at the rear of the home and will have minimal impact on the streetscape. However, no efforts have been made to limit effects on the neighbor's home (e.g., screening). The current neighbor does not object to the variance, but a variance, once issued, runs with the land and impacts future owners as well. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • The Comprehensive Plan guides this property's future land use as single-family residential. The use of the property will remain as single-family residential; as a result, it is consistent with the Plan. Does the ro osal ut the property to use in a reasonable manner? • There is ample buildable area on the property. Staff spent some time exploring alternative options for the addition. Figure 1 shows a hand -drawn plan for the addition that would not require a variance. The petitioner ultimately decided to proceed with the variance request instead of this option. The applicant believes the alternative adds cost to the project and unnecessary square footage to the home. t4 l T ii -�—J ID �` M 166 SFi [ r 16'-7` SHELF i P.[�• } f Figure 1: Alternative proposal for addition; not requiring a variance Are there unLque circumstances to the propeM, not created by the landowner? • The property is a standard residential lot in Fridley. It does not have a unique shape or slope that limits building an addition without a variance. • The nonconforming structure was constructed by a previous landowner. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The variance is for a modest deviation from the side yard setback. However, there are not unique characteristics of the property. A variance could set a precedent for future requests. If a 5-foot side yard setback for habitable space is desirable, staff recommends the Commission and Council consider changing the district standards instead of approving a single variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for Variance Request, VAR #24- 01. Alternative options to construct an addition within required setbacks exist. Staff does not identify any unique conditions and circumstances related to this lot that make it difficult to construct an Item 2. addition within the required setbacks. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny VAR #24-01. For variances on lots zoned R-1, Single Family, the Planning Commission has the authority to grant final approval provided the following conditions are met: a. There is unanimous agreement of the Planning Commission b. The staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission c. The general public attending the meeting or responding to the notice of public hearing have no objection. d. The petitioner is in agreement with the recommendation. Because staff does not recommend approval, the variance will be heard by the City Council on November 12, 2024. Attachments 1. Petitioner's narrative and drawings 2. Public Hearing notice to properties within 350 ft. 3. Findings of Fact denying the requested variance 2 Findings of Fact denying the requested variance Whereas, a practical difficulty or uniqueness was not found to meet the requirements for a variance, based on failure to satisfy all of the following standards: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. The proposed setback reduction does not include elements (e.g., screening,) to mitigate the impact to the neighboring property. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. However, an addition to the home can reasonably be constructed within the required setbacks, without necessitating a variance. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. However, there are not additional unique circumstances impacting site geometry or geography which limit the ability to comply with standard setbacks on this property. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality and due to its location in the rear yard. F14 Permit Information: Permit Type: Variance Permit Subtype: Single Family Residential Permit Number: VAR24-000001 Work Description: Reduce side yard setback to recognize and expand an existing nonconformity Property Information: Address: 257 69TH AVE NE City, State and Zip: FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PIN:143024220002 Property Owner Information: Property Owner: ZEMKE TRUSTEE, JASON P Property OwnerAddress: 257 69TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Applicant Information: Name: Jason Zemke Address: 257 69th Ave NE Fddley, MN 55432 Phone: (763) 571-4776 Application Information: Is the applicant the property owner? Property Owner Email Property Owner Phone Number Payment Information: Payment Date 09/13/2024 Signature: pq Application Date: Application Date: 09/26/2024 60-Day Deadline: 11/25/2024 120-Day Extension: 01/24/2025 Review Dates: Activity Name Application Intake Send 15 Day Letter Planning Commission Meeting City Council Meeting File with County Yes Received From Jason Zemke Completion Date 09/26/2024 09/30/2024 10/16/2024 Item 2. Fridley Civic Campus 7071 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 763-571-3450 1 FAX: 763-571-1287 1 FridleyMN.gov Payment Amount $500.00 Activity Status Complete Complete Pending 715 September 13, 2024 Jason and Rochelle Zemke 257 691h Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Detailed Narrative with Practical Difficulties Statement: We, the property owners, are seeking to request a Variance to reduce the side yard setback for a proposed additional 8' x 20' living area at the northwest corner of our house in order to recognize an existing non -conformity. The required side yard setback for R-1 zoning is 10'-0". The current side yard setback at the northwest corner of our house is 7.1'. The house was built in 1962, out of compliance with current zoning ordinances, through no fault of our own. The proposed addition will expand an existing undersized bedroom to create a primary bedroom suite with a new full bathroom. The proposed addition will maintain existing roof slopes and exterior materials and colors. Further, the proposed addition is in harmony with the existing architecture of the house by aligning with two existing exterior walls on the north and west sides of the house, and it is in harmony with the adjacent neighbor's house, which currently extends approximately 6'-0" past the rear of our house — upon completion, the rear wall of both houses will be in a similar location. Practical Difficulties: ■ The proposed addition will develop and enhance the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by zoning ordinance. ■ The need for a variance is due to circumstances unique to this property and were not created by the current owner (Jason and Rochelle Zemke). ■ The requested variance will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. Alternatives are not practical in that the proposed addition is the smallest functional footprint necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. A building addition that achieves the same functional space but that also abides by the 10'-0" side yard setback will require a larger net building addition (more square footage), more lot coverage, more expense, and would be out of character with the footprints and style of adjacent homes. CERTZFZCIAITE OF SURVEY FOR: JASON ZEMKE OF: 257 69TH AVENUE NE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA I\ L \] I .-. 1 L �\ L V L- /-, I V V .. V 1\ IV, L I J � h LO 00 PRC --HO O LC i AD' z ar 7 c z A J N F � I 1 L C`1 I I S89°59' 15 "E ,. Counry Park Sign 80.00 Drainage and Utility I '•o EaAmwl per RICE CREEK j L.; . �m PLAZA NORTA ADDITION 1S-21 1 EXISTING _0 \ SHED— I L-V 1 r, r ` .3 LL-VV!\ I — � / oT I•i S n� 1 (POSEDJSE ATI )ITIONCQ EXISTING HOUSE e F 48.53 S89°59'15"E ti i45' 0_49 1 r t I • P I I / s R�187.�3„ - 69TH AVENUE NE PARCEL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota NOTES: 1- The fieldwork was completed by Northwind Land Surveying, LLC on 9/24/2024. 2, Parcel Identification Number. 14-30-24-22-0002 1 Bearings shown hereon are in reference to the Anoka County Coordinate System, 4. The surveyed parcel contains 10,458 sq,ft (±O 24 acres). 5, This survey was prepared without the benefit of a title commitment- The surveyed parcel may be subject to additional easements, covenants, restrictions or matters other than those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt and review of a title commitment. 1 NORTHMNO 1tCOON N EVERGREEN CIRCLE NW ``�� '`{ RAPIDS, M55448 LANDSVRYEYOLLU WWWW.NORTHWINDLS-COM LEGEND f Denotes Found Iron Monument L8 Denotes Power Pole Denotes Mist. 8 Sign Denotes Gas Meter E Denotes Electric Meter Denotes Light Pole © Denotes Handhole ra; Denotes Air Conditioner Denotes Bituminous Surface Denotes Concrete Surface Denotes Overhead Utility Line — • — Denotes Existing Fence — — • — Denotes Existing Landscape Edge GRAPHIC SCALE I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by p 10 10 a0 me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signed: Northwind Land Surveying, LLC (IN FEET) By. C.,i roe nblo+ Onr �ItdR+ Cu.,, iy x�u Kevin C. McCain, RLS No. 58542 Date: 9126/24 Item 2. Community Development Department Fridlev Public Hearing Notice moo .�. R�. •ram �.� •Y, _ f I. 9 ., nF lop—Y ' 2P 25 ti 'r •j . •Y\�6 to kl +{{ Y.� _. _ -•� -f Y ICI. `b7S ..,' -17 SOURCES Fridley Engineering and Planning N Fridley GIS Variance, VAR #24-01 Request Anoka County GIS Petitioner: Jason Zemke W E Address: 257 69th Ave N.E. S Map Date: 10/1/2024 18 Fridley Civic Campus 7071 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley 763-571-3450 1 FAX: 763-571-1287 1 FridleyMN.gov PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE To: Property Owners and Residents within 350 feet of 257 69th Avenue NE Applicant: Jason Zemke Request: A Variance, VAR #24-01, by Jason Zemke, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming home, generally located at 257 69th Avenue NE, the legal description is on file an available at Fridley Civic Campus. Date of Hearings: Planninci Commission Meeting, Wednesday, October 16 2024 at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting is televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. Location of Planning Commission Hearing: Meeting will be held in person at Fridley Civic Campus located at 7071 University Avenue NE. How to Participate: 1. You may attend the public hearing in person and testify. 2. You may submit a letter in advance of the meeting to Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at the address above or by email at stacy.st romberg @fri d i gym n.gov Questions: Call or Email Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at 763-572-3595 or stacy.stromberci@fridleymQ.gov Mailing date: October 4, 2024 Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any City of Fridley services, programs or activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons who require auxiliary aids should contact CityClerk@FridleyMN.gov or (763) 572-3450. LABELS FOR Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 260 69TH AVE NE 285 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident FRIDLEY MN 55432 266 69TH AVE NE 295 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 241 69TH AVE NE 274 69TH AVE NE 289 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 249 69TH AVE NE 242 69TH AVE NE 281 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 257 69TH AVE NE 218 69TH AVE NE 277 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 267 69TH AVE NE 226 69TH AVE NE 273 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 280 69TH AVE NE 234 69TH AVE NE 269 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 6890 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 217 69TH AVE NE 232 69TH PL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 225 69TH PL NE 225 69TH AVE NE 238 69TH PL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 252 69TH PL NE 233 69TH AVE NE 246 69TH PL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 LABELS FOR BUCHANAN PAUL K & MICHIKO T JOHNSON SCOTT A & LYNN M Parcel Owner 260 69TH AVE NE 285 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 ANOKA COUNTY OF TRIPP LAURA WALCH RICHARD 325 EAST MAIN ST 266 69TH AVE NE 470 RICE CREEK BLVD NE ANOKA MN 55303 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 CARLSON CAROL A LONE MARGARET SIMONS TRUSTEE RONALD A 241 69TH AVE E 274 69TH AVE NE 289 RICE CREEK BLVD FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 MURZYN, EDWARD MURPHY JOAN M FOXHOVEN CRAIG S & JENNIFER K 249 69TH AVE NE 242 69TH AVE NE 281 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 ZEMKE TRUSTEE, JASON P BARKER ROXANNE DAML, JEREMY 257 69TH AVE NE 218 69TH AVE NE 277 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 WALDEN, DAVID A SNYDER BRIAN D ELLIOTT JR, CHESTER H 267 69TH AVE NE 226 69TH AVE NE 273 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 WYATT MARTY L LECLAIR LONNIE L & MARSHA J STRATE SANDRA A 280 69TH AVE NE 234 69TH AVE NE 269 RICE CREEK BLVD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 HPA II BORROWER 2020-1 GA LLC CARLSON, GLEN C LARSON ERIC J & KELLY M PO BOX 4900 217 69TH AVE NE 232 69TH PL NE SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 DOHERTY RICHARD & AMY DALLAVALLE, NEA C KELZENBERG TRUSTEE KEVIN 225 69TH PL NE 225 69TH AVE NE 238 69TH PL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 HAYNES, ILLYA ELIEFF, JOSETTE MITTENESS BRITTANY 252 69TH PL NE 233 69TH AVE NE 246 69TH PL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 Planning Commission - October 16, 2024 °f 7:00 PM Fridley Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue NE Minutes Call to Order Chair Hansen called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present Pete Borman Aaron Brom Aaron Klemz Ross Meisner Paul Nealy Absent Mike Heuchert Others Present Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager Nancy Abts, Associate Planner Jason and Rochelle Zemke, 257 69th Avenue N.E. Edward Murzyn, 249 69t" Avenue N.E. Approval of Meeting Minutes 1. Approve September 18, 024, Planning Commission Minutes Motion by Commissioner inner to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all v fing aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing 2. Variance, VAR 24-01, by Jason Zemke, to Reduce the Required Side Yard Setback from 10 Feet to 6.7 Feet to Allow an Addition to an Existing Nonconforming Home, Generally Located at 257 691" Avenue NW Motion by Commissioner Meisner to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7.•02 p.m. Planning Commission 10/ 16/2024 Minutes Page 2 Nancy Abts, Associate Planner, presented a request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback to allow the expansion of an existing home at 257 691" Avenue. She provided a site description and history of the property. She then reviewed the code and statutory requirements that the Commission should consider relating to this variance request. She noted that the current neighbor does not object to this variance, but explained that the variance would run with the land and impact future property owners as well. She stated that staff recommends denial of the variance as the request does not satisfy the uniqueness requirement and there are reasonable alternatives. Commissioner Borman stated that he met with the petitioner and the alternative noted by staff would add additional cost to the project. He believed that would be undue cost for the modest addition. Commissioner Nealy asked how they got from ten to seven. Ms. Abts replied that City staff was not here in 1962 but perhaps the survey corners were not marked appropriately or the foundation was laid a bit off. Commissioner Brom referenced the option to change standards citywide and what that process would entail. Ms. Abts replied that as the Commission know the City is in the process of updating the zoning code. She stated that the zoning code helps to address environmental quality and water runoff. She stated that in Fridley they have addressed that by requiring generous yards in lieu of large stormwater ponds. Commissioner Brom asked if the variance were granted, whether that would mean future requests similar in nature would also have to be approved. Ms. Abts replied that there is a risk of setting a precedent. Commissioner Klemz noted that this is not straight along the lot line. He asked if the line were to run straight, parallel to the lot line at 7.1 feet, whether that would still require a variance. Ms. Abts confirmed that a variance would still be required. Commissioner Meisner asked where variable cost is considered, and if the alternative is more expensive, would that support a case for a variance. Ms. Abts replied that economic considerations can be part of the consideration but cannot be the only reason to grant a variance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 10/16/2024 Commissioner Meisner stated that one of the reasons this Commission exists is to evaluate exceptions to the rules. He stated that there are a number of factors that place this property in the grey area, primarily because it is already nonconforming, and this would only be a 3.5-inch difference from the variance that already exists. He stated that he was not concerned with precedent in this case as there are reasonable considerations to the request. He noted that the neighboring property is the garage side. He referenced the comment that there are reasonable alternatives and asked how reasonableness is assessed. Ms. Abts replied that the applicant and neighbor are present and perhaps can provide input. She stated that she would be curious of the magnitude of the increased cost of building within the allowed area rather than the setback. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, stated that for staff, if there is a reasonable alternative and there is not a practical difficulty, there is not a way for staff to recommend approval. Chair Hansen invited the applicant to address the Commission. Jason Zemke, applicant, stated that the report does not include their proposed floor plan and believed that if the Commission could see their modest layout for the addition, they would feel it is appropriate for a home that was built out of compliance 60 years ago. He stated that this out of compliance home, built askew from the property line, has caused no issues to the neighborhood for the last 60 years. He stated that the addition would be seamless to the property and would not appear out of character. Commissioner Meisner stated that the Commission has a certificate from the company which shows the proposed addition. Mr. Zemke confirmed that is accurate but noted that the floorplan for that space is a bedroom and attached bathroom. Commissioner Borman asked if the applicant has an estimated cost for the proposal by City staff, compared to this proposed addition. Mr. Zemke replied that the cost would be about double based on the amount of square footage shown in the staff alternative. He stated that the current estimate is about $100,000 for the addition. Commissioner Borman commented that the staff alternative would involve extensive changes to the roofline as well, which would easily double the cost. Edward Murzyn, the neighbor at 249 69t" Avenue stated that he has no objection to the addition and loves to see the applicants improving their property. He stated that the applicants are active in the neighborhood, take care of their yard, and he would love to see them be able to improve their home. Commissioner Klemz referenced the uniqueness criteria and asked if property is described in that statute, as staff seemed to describe the lot itself and not the home. Ms. Abts replied that she is Planning Commission 10/16/2024 Minutes Page 4 unsure how that is defined in statute but could look into that. Ms. Stromberg stated that the practice of staff is to apply that to the physical land, not the home. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Nealy. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 724 p.m. Commissioner Nealy stated that this is a building that is already out of compliance due to no fault of the current owners and no matter what someone does on this property there will already be a seven - foot setback instead of ten. He did not believe that extending that by the length of the addition would cause harm. He did not believe that an additional 3.5 inches for a reduced setback would make a difference and did not believe anyone would even notice. He stated that he would support the variance request. Commissioner Meisner stated that there are guidelines to maintain the character of the neighborhoods and community. He stated that there are also a variety of tools that allow an exception. He stated that in this situation there is not a preexisting reason that would allow staff to recommend approval of the variance but also believed that is one of the reasons the Planning Commission exists, to understand the regulations of the City, needs of the residents, and perhaps provide recommendations that generally make sense. He stated that the extension of the line of the home by the length of the addition, even though it would encroach an additional 3.5 inches into the setback, is a reasonable request. He stated that even though there is not a typical reason to approve the variance, he is amenable to the request. Commissioner Klemz stated that the alternative to approving the variance would be changing the code, which would set city-wide precedent whereas approval of this request would not set the same precedent. He agreed with the reasonableness of this concern and noted that the neighboring property owner also agrees. Commissioner Borman stated that he agrees with Commissioners Nealy and Meisner and believed that the variance would be proper tool for this situation. He noted that this is extending the current line of the home by eight feet. He commented that this is a very reasonable request. Commissioner Brom stated that he agrees with everyone and commended staff for their recommendation as they did not believe that this request met the statutory requirements. He stated that this is one of those circumstances where they (the Commission) need to understand the needs of the residents and he did not believe that approving this request would be a detriment to anyone. Chair Hansen stated that he walked into the meeting with a different mindset, and he tends to think that variances should only be granted under certain circumstances to avoid setting precedent. He Planning Commission 10/16/2024 Minutes Page 5 stated that this home was built askew to the property line and therefore is already nonconforming and this does appear to be a reasonable addition. He stated that if this were done under a building permit, no one else would probably even notice other than the neighbor, who agrees to the request. He noted that typically there is a drainage/utility easement in the side yard but that does not exist in this location. He believed that this approval is unlikely to trigger a series of similar applications. He stated that if the property were not already nonconforming, he would not support the request but because of the conditions that exist in this case, he can support the request. Commissioner Meisner stated that because of the magnitude of the sum of the variables he can support this request, but if it were just one of the factors without the others, he would find it difficult to approve. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Chair Hansen noted that this will move forward for review by the City Council on November 12, 2024. Other Business Ms. Stromberg rovided an update on potential meetings for November. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Meisner to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Brom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,. Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 736 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Stromberg, Staff Liaison Planning Commission October 16, 2024 7:00 PM Fridley Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue NE Minutes Call to Order Chair Hansen called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present Pete Borman Aaron Brom Aaron Klemz Ross Meisner Paul Nealy Absent Mike Heuchert Others Present Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager Nancy Abts, Associate Planner Jason and Rochelle Zemke, 257 �0 Avenue N.E. Edward Murzyn, 249 691h AvenVe N.E. Approve September 18, 2024, Planning Commission Minutes Motion by Commi0ioner Meisner to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vole, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing 2. Variance, VAR 24-01, by Jason Zemke, to Reduce the Required Side Yard Setback from 10 Feet to 6.7 Feet to Allow an Addition to an Existing Nonconforming Home, Generally Located at 257 69th Avenue NW Motion by Commissioner Meisner to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7:02 p.m. Planning Commission 10/16/2024 Minutes Page 2 Nancy Abts, Associate Planner, presented a request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback to allow the expansion of an existing home at 257 69th Avenue. She provided a site description and history of the property. She then reviewed the code and statutory requirements that the Commission should consider relating to this variance request. She noted that the current neighbor does not object to this variance, but explained that the variance would run with the land and impact future property owners as well. She stated that staff recommends denial of the variance as the request does not satisfy the uniqueness requirement and there are reasonable alternatives. Commissioner Borman stated that he met with the petitioner and the alternative noted by staff would add additional cost to the project. He believed that would be undue cost for the modest addition. Commissioner Nealy asked how they got from ten to seven. Ms. Abts replied that City staff was not here in 1962 but perhaps the survey corners were not marked appropriately or the foundation was laid a bit off. Commissioner Brom referenced the option to change standards citywide and what that process would entail. Ms. Abts replied that as the Commission know the City is in the process of updating the zoning code. She stated that the zoning code helps to address environmental quality and water runoff. She stated that in Fridley they have addressed that by requiring generous yards in lieu of large stormwater ponds. Commissioner Brom asked if the variance were granted, whether that would mean future requests similar in nature would also have to be approved. Ms. Abts replied that there is a risk of setting a precedent. Commissioner Klemz noted that this is not straight along the lot line. He asked if the line were to run straight, parallel to the lot line at 7.1 feet, whether that would still require a variance. Ms. Abts confirmed that a variance would still be required. Commissioner Meisner asked where variable cost is considered, and if the alternative is more expensive, would that support a case for a variance. Ms. Abts replied that economic considerations can be part of the consideration but cannot be the only reason to grant a variance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 10/16/2024 Commissioner Meisner stated that one of the reasons this Commission exists is to evaluate exceptions to the rules. He stated that there are a number of factors that place this property in the grey area, primarily because it is already nonconforming, and this would only be a 3.5-inch difference from the variance that already exists. He stated that he was not concerned with precedent in this case as there are reasonable considerations to the request. He noted that the neighboring property is the garage side. He referenced the comment that there are reasonable alternatives and asked how reasonableness is assessed. Ms. Abts replied that the applicant and neighbor are present and perhaps can provide input. She stated that she would be curious of the magnitude of the increased cost of building within the allowed area rather than the setback. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, stated that for staff, if there is a reasonable alternative and there is not a practical difficulty, there is not a way for staff to recommend approval. Chair Hansen invited the applicant to address the Commission. Jason Zemke, applicant, stated that the report does not include their proposed floor plan and believed that if the Commission could see their modest layout for the addition, they would feel it is appropriate for a home that was built out of compliance 60 years ago. He stated that this out of compliance home, built askew from the property line, has caused no issues to the neighborhood for the last 60 years. He stated that the addition would be seamless to the property and would not appear out of character. Commissioner Meisner stated that the Commission has a certificate from the company which shows the proposed addition. Mr. Zemke confirmed that is accurate but noted that the floorplan for that space is a bedroom and attached bathroom. Commissioner Borman asked if the applicant has an estimated cost for the proposal by City staff, compared to this proposed addition. Mr. Zemke replied that the cost would be about double based on the amount of square footage shown in the staff alternative. He stated that the current estimate is about $100,000 for the addition. Commissioner Borman commented that the staff alternative would involve extensive changes to the roofline as well, which would easily double the cost. Edward Murzyn, the neighbor at 249 69th Avenue stated that he has no objection to the addition and loves to see the applicants improving their property. He stated that the applicants are active in the neighborhood, take care of their yard, and he would love to see them be able to improve their home. Commissioner Klemz referenced the uniqueness criteria and asked if property is described in that statute, as staff seemed to describe the lot itself and not the home. Ms. Abts replied that she is Planning Commission 10/16/2024 Minutes Page 4 unsure how that is defined in statute but could look into that. Ms. Stromberg stated that the practice of staff is to apply that to the physical land, not the home. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Nealy. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Nealy stated that this is a building that is already out of compliance due to no fault of the current owners and no matter what someone does on this property there will already be a seven - foot setback instead of ten. He did not believe that extending that by the length of the addition would cause harm. He did not believe that an additional 3.5 inches for a reduced setback would make a difference and did not believe anyone would even notice. He stated that he would support the variance request. Commissioner Meisner stated that there are guidelines to maintain the character of the neighborhoods and community. He stated that there are also a variety of tools that allow an exception. He stated that in this situation there is not a preexisting reason that would allow staff to recommend approval of the variance but also believed that is one of the reasons the Planning Commission exists, to understand the regulations of the City, needs of the residents, and perhaps provide recommendations that generally make sense. He stated that the extension of the line of the home by the length of the addition, even though it would encroach an additional 3.5 inches into the setback, is a reasonable request. He stated that even though there is not a typical reason to approve the variance, he is amenable to the request. Commissioner Klemz stated that the alternative to approving the variance would be changing the code, which would set city-wide precedent whereas approval of this request would not set the same precedent. He agreed with the reasonableness of this concern and noted that the neighboring property owner also agrees. Commissioner Borman stated that he agrees with Commissioners Nealy and Meisner and believed that the variance would be proper tool for this situation. He noted that this is extending the current line of the home by eight feet. He commented that this is a very reasonable request. Commissioner Brom stated that he agrees with everyone and commended staff for their recommendation as they did not believe that this request met the statutory requirements. He stated that this is one of those circumstances where they (the Commission) need to understand the needs of the residents and he did not believe that approving this request would be a detriment to anyone. Chair Hansen stated that he walked into the meeting with a different mindset, and he tends to think that variances should only be granted under certain circumstances to avoid setting precedent. He Planning Commission 10/16/2024 Minutes Page 5 stated that this home was built askew to the property line and therefore is already nonconforming and this does appear to be a reasonable addition. He stated that if this were done under a building permit, no one else would probably even notice other than the neighbor, who agrees to the request. He noted that typically there is a drainage/utility easement in the side yard but that does not exist in this location. He believed that this approval is unlikely to trigger a series of similar applications. He stated that if the properly were not already nonconforming, he would not support the request but because of the conditions that exist in this case, he can support the request. Commissioner Meisner stated that because of the magnitude of the sum of the variables he can support this request, but if it were just one of the factors without the others, he would find it difficult to approve. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Chair Hansen noted that this will move forward for review by the City Council on November 12, 2024. Other Business Ms. Stromberg provided an update on potential meetings for November. Adjournment Motion by Upon a voice vote, all i adjourned at 726 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Stromberg, Staff Liaison to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Brom. Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting 'in- of AGENDA REPORT Fridley Meeting Date: November 12, 2024 Meeting Type: City Council Submitted By: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager Nancy Abts, Associate Planner Title Adoption of Resolution No. 2024-158 Regarding Variance, VAR #24-01 petitioned by Jason Zemke Background Property owner Jason Zemke requests a variance to allow construction of an addition to an existing nonconforming home located at 257 69th Avenue NE. The addition would encroach into the side yard setback, reducing the distance from the eastern property line to 6.9 feet, from a standard 10 foot setback for habitable space. (Uninhabited garages are allowed to with a five-foot side yard setback.) Variances may only be granted if the Council makes a determination that practical difficulties exist on the property. Staff does not support a variance in this instance because alternatives exist that would allow an addition to be built without a variance. However, the Planning Commission recommendation was for approval, based on the specific conditions of the property and proposed addition. Financial Impact No financial impact. Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing for VAR #21-01 at their October 16, 2024 meeting. After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Variance, VAR #24-01. The motion carried unanimously. Due to the differences in staff and Planning Commission recommendation, two possible resolutions are provided for the Council's consideration. Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment X Vibrant Neighborhoods & Places Community Identity & Relationship Building Financial Stability & Commercial Prosperity Public Safety & Environmental Stewardship Organizational Excellence Attachments and Other Resources Vision Statement We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses. • Two versions of Resolution No. 2024-158 • Staff Report to the Planning Commission • Site Plan Vision Statement We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses. Land Use Application summary Item: VAR #24-000001 Meeting Date: October 16, 2024 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jason Zemke 257 69th Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance Location: 257 69th Avenue NE Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Size: 10,458 sq. ft. .24 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Community Park - P E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Guided for Single Family land use Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.03.D.2.a requires habitable space to be set back 10 feet from the property line Building and Zoning History: 1959 — Lot is platted 1962 — Building Permit issued; identifies a 10 ft side yard setback for the home 1972 — Special Use Permit approved for 2nd garage. Survey included in application notes an as -built 7.1 setback for the home. 2002 — Variance issued to recognize the existing nonconforming structure. 192 sq ft addition constructed in rear yard. Legal Description of Property: Lot 2, Block 2, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Public Utilities: Home is connected Transportation: Property is accessed from 69th Avenue NE Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, rectangular lot that abuts Community Park Summary of Request: Property owner Jason Zemke requests a variance to expand an existing nonconforming building located at 257 69th Ave NE. The variance would permit an addition to the home and reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet. Staff Recommendation: City staff do not believe the request meets statutory requirements for a variance and recommend denial of the request. Aerial of the Property City Council Action/60 Day Action Date: City Council — November 12, 2024 60 Day Date — November 25, 2024 Staff Report Prepared by Nancy Abts Written Report - The Request Jason Zemke is an owner of the home at 257 69th Avenue NE. A previous owner built the home within the required side yard. Jason requests a variance to allow an addition to the home. The addition would encroach into the side yard, reducing the distance from the eastern property line to 6.9 feet, from the required 10-foot setback. (Garages are allowed with a five-foot side yard setback. This is because garages are uninhabited.) Site Description and History The subject property is located on 69th Avenue N.E., immediately south of Community Park. It is zoned R-1, Single Family. When the existing home was constructed in 1962, the building permit indicated a 10-foot side yard. In 1972, a Special Use Permit (SUP) was issued for a second detached garage. The SUP application materials included a drawing showing a 7.1 foot as -built setback for the home. In 2002, an eight by twenty -four -foot addition to the rear of the home was proposed. At this time, a variance was approved to acknowledge expansion of the nonconforming structure, in a way that did not increase the nonconforming setback. The addition was then built in the rear yard. (Today, this could be done with an administrative Nonconforming Expansion Permit. The permit process was adopted in 2015, in part because of issues like this.) Code Requirements and Analysis Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines in the R-1 Zoning District. State law establishes a 3-pronged analysis for variances, which is adopted in Fridley's city code. Specifically, A property owner may request a variance when the owner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with [the Zoning chapter]. An application must... state the exceptional conditions and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for a variance. A practical difficulty means: 1. The property owner proposes performance standards for the property in a reasonable manner, but not permitted by the Zoning Code. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.... The finding of fact shall contain the following: 1. The public policy which is served by the requirement; and 2. The unique circumstance of the property that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the requirement; and 3. Any stipulations of the variance approval. Summary of Practical Difficulties provided by the Petitioner "Practical Difficulties: The proposed addition will develop and enhance the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by zoning ordinance. The need for a variance is due to circumstances unique to this property and were not created by the current owner (Jason and Rochelle Zemke). The requested variance will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. "Alternatives are not practical in that the proposed addition is the smallest functional footprint necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. A building addition that achieves the same functional space but that also abides by the 10'-0" side yard setback will require a larger net building addition (more square footage), more lot coverage, more expense, and would be out of character with the footprints and style of adjacent homes." Practical Difficulties Variances may be granted if practical difficulties exist on the property. Staff finds that practical difficulties are not met in this case, based on the following findings of fact: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? • A side yard setback is intended to provide adequate space between homes. This allows green space, ventilation and access. In Fridley, the Hyde Park district allows a 7.5 setback. Other more dense cities like Columbia Heights and Minneapolis commonly have side yards smaller than 10 feet. Along with lot size and width requirements, side yards also provide a consistent urban form and character. The addition is proposed at the rear of the home, and will have minimal impact on the streetscape. However, no efforts have been made to limit effects on the neighbor's home (e.g., screening). The current neighbor does not object to the variance, but a variance, once issued, runs with the land and impacts future owners as well. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • The Comprehensive Plan guides this property's future land use as single-family residential. The use of the property will remain as single-family residential; as a result, it is consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the prop—efly to use in a reasonable manner? • There is ample buildable area on the property. Staff spent some time exploring alternative options for the addition. Figure 1 shows a hand -drawn plan for the addition that would not require a variance. The petitioner ultimately decided to proceed with the variance request instead of this option. 166 The applicant believes the alternative adds cost to the project and unnecessary square footage to the home. E SFi` 16' - 7' SIAFLF Figure 1: Alternative proposal for addition; not requiring a variance Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? * The property is a standard residential lot in Fridley. It does not have a unique shape or slope that limits building an addition without a variance. * The nonconforming structure was constructed by a previous landowner. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The variance is for a modest deviation from the side yard setback. However, there are not unique characteristics of the property. A variance could set a precedent for future requests. If a 5 foot side yard setback for habitable space is desirable, staff recommends the Commission and Council consider changing the district standards instead of approving a single variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for Variance Request, VAR #24-- 01. Alternative options to construct an addition within required setbacks exist. Staff does not identify also any unique conditions and circumstances related to this lot that make it difficult to construct an addition within the required setbacks. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny VAR #24--01. For variances on lots zoned R-1, Single Family, the Planning Commission has the authority to grant final approval provided the following conditions are met: a. There is unanimous agreement of the Planning Commission b. The staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission c. The general public attending the meeting or responding to the notice of public hearing have no objection. The petitioner is in agreement with the recommendation. Because staff does not recommend approval, the variance will be heard by the City Council on November 12, 2024. Attachments 1. Petitioner's narrative and drawings 2. Public Hearing notice to properties within 350 ft. 3. Findings of Fact denying the requested variance Findings of Fact denying the requested variance Whereas, a practical difficulty or uniqueness was not found to meet the requirements for a variance, based on failure to satisfy all of the following standards: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. The proposed setback reduction does not include elements (e.g., screening,) to mitigate the impact to the neighboring property. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. However, an addition to the home can reasonably be constructed within the required setbacks, without necessitating a variance. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. However, there are not additional unique circumstances impacting site geometry or geography which limit the ability to comply with standard setbacks on this property. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality and due to its location in the rear yard. Resolution No. 2024-158 Approving a Variance, VAR #24-01 to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to allow the Proposed Addition at the Property Located at 257 69`" Avenue, Owned by Jason Zemke and Rochelle Zemke, Trustees Whereas, on September 26, 2024, an application for a Variance was submitted for the property generally located at 257 691" Ave NE, legally described in Exhibit A ("the property'); and Whereas, Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines; and Whereas. Section 205.05.07 of the City Code allows a variance to be granted where exceptional conditions or unique circumstances exist that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the City Code; and Whereas, variance application, VAR #24-01 submitted by Jason Zemke for the property, requests approval to reduce the side yard setback 6.7 feet, instead of the code -required 10 feet, in order to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure ("the request") ; and Whereas, on October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission ("Commission") held a public hearing to consider the request; and Whereas, the Commission found the request to meet the requirements for a variance, based on the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. In this instance the Commission finds the proposed modest 3.3 foot setback reduction does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. In this instance the Commission finds that the significant cost savings provided by the modest variance are compelling. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality due to its location in the rear yard. Whereas, at the October 16, 2024, meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request; and Whereas, on November 12, 2024, the Fridley City Council ("Council") reviewed the request at its regular meeting. Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Council hereby approves the requested variance and allows the proposed addition based on the listed findings of fact. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 12'h day of November, 2024. Scott J. Lund — Mayor ATTEST: Melissa Moore — City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description for 257 69`h Avenue NE Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Resolution No. 2024-158 Denying a Variance, VAR #24-01 to Reduce the Side Yard Setback for the Property Located at 257 69th Avenue, Owned by Jason Zemke and Rochelle Zemke, Trustees Whereas, on September 26, 2024, an application for a Variance was submitted for the property generally located at 257 69th Ave NE, legally described in Exhibit A ("the property"); and Whereas, Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side properly lines; and Whereas, Section 205.05.07 of the City Code allows a variance to be granted where exceptional conditions or unique circumstances exist that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the City Code; and Whereas, variance application, VAR #24-01 submitted by Jason Zemke for the property, requests approval to reduce the side yard setback 6.7 feet, instead of the code -required 10 feet, in order to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure ("the request") ; and Whereas, on October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission ("Commission") held a public hearing to consider the request, and Whereas, a practical difficulty or uniqueness was not found to meet the requirements for a variance, based the following findings of fact that show failure to satisfy all of the following standards: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. The proposed setback reduction does not include elements (e.g., screening,) to mitigate the impact to the neighboring property. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. However, an addition to the home can reasonably be constructed within the required setbacks, without necessitating a variance. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. However, there are not additional unique circumstances impacting site geometry or geography which limit the ability to comply with standard setbacks on this property. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality due to its location in the rear yard. Whereas, at the October 16, 2024, meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request; and Whereas, on November 12, 2024, the Fridley City Council ("Council") reviewed the request at its regular meeting. Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Council hereby denies the requested variance based on the listed findings of fact. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 12th day of November, 2024. Scott J. Lund — Mayor ATTEST: Melissa Moore — City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description for 257 69th Avenue NE Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. City Council Meeting 11/12/2024 Minutes Page 4 10. Resolution No. 2024-158, Considering Variance, VAR #24-01 Petitioned by Jason Zemke Mr. Hickok presented a request for a variance to allow a nine-by-20-foot addition within the side yard setback of an existing nonconforming home at 257 69th Avenue. He reviewed the site description and history, and current conditions. He reviewed the applicant's proposal for the addition as well as an alternative provided by staff that would not require a variance. He stated that staff recommended denial at the Planning Commission meeting as there was an alternative option. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 16th where the property owner and neighbor spoke in favor of the variance. The Planning Commission supported the applicant's request and recommended approval as presented. Councilmember Tillberry asked about the cost difference between the applicant's proposal and staff alternative. Mr. Hickok stated that the cost difference was not analyzed as staff cannot consider that as part of the review. Councilmember Tillberry asked and received confirmation that the neighbor who supported the request was the neighbor to the west. Councilmember Tillberry asked the precedent that would be set if this were to be approved. Mr. Hickok commented that variance requests are unique and evaluated on their own merit. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she and Councilmember Ostwald met with the applicants and stated that if this were her home she would move forward with the proposal of the applicant. She noted that the property is already nonconforming, the adjacent property owner supports the request, the cost is lower, and the staff alternative takes up more green space from the yard. She believed that this was a great opportunity for the property owner to remain in their home with increased space. Mayor Lund commented that he drove by the property and noticed the different property stakes, asking for clarification. Jason Zemke, applicant, replied that the yellow stakes mark the corners of their egress windows to ensure there is not damage from equipment. Mayor Lund appreciated the hard work of staff but believed the staff alternative is most likely much more expensive than the proposal of the applicant. Mr. Zemke stated that he would estimate the cost to be about double of what is proposed. He stated that they have worked with their builder to seamlessly blend into the existing roof line. Mayor Lund commented that he agrees with the addition. Mayor Lund asked if this house has received a variance in the past as it currently does not meet the standards with its positioning. He recognized that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, which also carries weight. Councilmember Evanson recognized that the resident wants to stay here and invest in their property rather than move. He respected the work of staff and their recommendation but does not believe that this addition will dramatically change the character of the block, and the neighbor also provided support. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that she believes that the staff alternative would more dramatically change the character of the block. City Council Meeting 11/12/2024 Minutes Page 5 Councilmember Evanson referenced the statement of staff that they could look at the standards in this area and stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the standards to determine if things have changed in the last 60 years. Mayor Lund commented that this is a unique situation in which the home was built. Councilmember Evanson commented that if there are additional requests that come forward, perhaps then they would consider review of the standards. Councilmember Ostwald asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Mr. Zemke commented that they have lived in the home for 26 years. Councilmember Ostwald commented that this will tie in nicely with the configuration of the home and look like it was originally designed in this manner. He did not believe the applicant should be penalized for something that already existed when the home was purchased. Councilmember Tillberry commented that he felt that it was important that the neighbor most impacted was supportive of the request. Motion made by Councilmember Bolkcom, to approve Resolution No. 2024-158, Approving Variance, VAR #24-01, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Allow the Proposed Addition at the Property Located at 257 69th Avenue, Owned by Jason Zemke and Rochelle Zemke. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Lund declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hickok stated that in the past the front yard setback was reduced in response to a number of requests that were received by residents to add a front porch. He did not anticipate that they would see a number of side yard reduction requests as that area is already small. 11. Resolution No. 2024-161, Approving Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water and Solid Waste Abatement Charges and Rates fa the Year 2025 Joe Starks, Finance Director, reviewed the major assumptions for all utility funds as well as more specific information and assumptions for the water utility fund, sanitary sewer fund, storm water fund, and solid waste abatement special revenue fund. He also reviewed a sample quarterly utility bill for a residential property. Motion made by Councilmember Evanson to adapt Resolution No. 2024-161, Approving Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water and Solid Waste Abatement Charges and Rates for the Year 2025. Seconded by Councilmember Ostwald. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Lund declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. Resolution No. 2024-163, Receiving Feasibility Report and Call;ng for Public Hearing on the 2025 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2025-01 Brandon Brodhag, Assistant City Engineer, provided background information on the proposed project including the project area, project needs, as well as the process of concrete pavement rehabilitation. Resolution No. 2024-158 Approving a Variance, VAR #24-01 to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Allow the Proposed Addition at the Property Located at 257 69th Avenue, Owned by Jason Zemke and Rochelle Zemke, Trustees Whereas, on September 26, 2024, an application for a Variance was submitted for the property generally located at 257 691" Ave NE, legally described in Exhibit A (property); and Whereas, Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines; and Whereas, Section 205.05.07 of the City Code allows a variance to be granted where exceptional conditions or unique circumstances exist that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the City Code; and Whereas, variance application, VAR #24-01 submitted by Jason Zemke for the property, requests approval to reduce the side yard setback 6.7 feet, instead of the code -required 10 feet, in order to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure (request) ; and Whereas, on October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing to consider the request; and Whereas, the Commission found the request to meet the requirements for a variance, based on the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. In this instance the Commission finds the proposed modest 33 foot setback reduction does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. In this instance the Commission finds that the significant cost savings provided by the modest variance are compelling. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality due to its location in the rear yard. Whereas, at the October 16, 2024, meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request; and Whereas, on November 12, 2024, the Fridley City Council (Council) reviewed the request at its regular meeting. Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Council hereby approves the requested variance and allows the proposed addition based on the listed findings of fact. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 12' day of November, 2024. lew�l. Scott J. Lund — Mayor Attest: Melissa Moore — City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description for 257 691h Avenue NE Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Document No.: 2426874.001 ABSTRACT 11/18/2024 02:38 PM Fees/Taxes In the Amount of: $46.00 Pamela J. LeBlanc Anoka Cty Property Records and Taxation Property Tax Administrator and Recorder/Registrar of Titles Deputy: ssmith STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS VARIANCE COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of: A Variance, VAR # 24-01 Owner: Jason & Rochelle Zemke Trustee The above -entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 12th day of November, 2024, on a petition for a variance pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: A Variance, VAR #24-01, by Jason Zemke, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming home, generally located at 257 69th Avenue NE, and the legal description is Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota IT IS ORDERED that a variance be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approval with no stipulations. See Resolution No. 2024-158. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA } CITY OF FRIDLEY OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Melissa Moore, 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 1511- day of , 2024. DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 7071 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Melissa Moore, City Clerk \ • • gbTa nr •. C Rxa� ••,t�`� (SEAL) fi Variances are valid for a period of one year following approval and shall be co� ns"i-dered void if not used within that period. Resolution No_ 2024-158 Approving a Variance, VAR #24-01 to Reduce the Side Yard Setback to Allow the Proposed Addition at the Property Located at 257 691h Avenue, Owned by Jason Zemke and Rochelle Zemke, Trustees Whereas, on September 26, 2024, an application for a Variance was submitted for the property generally located at 257 69`" Ave NE, legally described in Exhibit A (property); and Whereas, Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines; and Whereas, Section 205.05.07 of the City Code allows a variance to be granted where exceptional conditions or unique circumstances exist that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the City Code; and Whereas, variance application, VAR #24-01 submitted by Jason Zemke for the property, requests approval to reduce the side yard setback 6.7 feet, instead of the code -required 10 feet, in order to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure (request) ; and Whereas, on October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing to consider the request; and Whereas, the Commission found the request to meet the requirements for a variance, based on the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. In this instance the Commission finds the proposed modest 3.3 foot setback reduction does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. In this instance the Commission finds that the significant cost savings provided by the modest variance are compelling. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality due to its location in the rear yard. Whereas, at the October 16, 2024, meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request; and Whereas, on November 12, 2024, the Fridley City Council (Council) reviewed the request at its regular meeting. Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Council hereby approves the requested variance and allows the proposed addition based on the listed findings of fact. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 12th day of November, 2024. Scott J. Lund — Mayor Attest: Melissa Moore —City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description for 257 691h Avenue NE Lot 2, Block 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.