Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-184 CCR Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 75 -184 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 75018 WHEREAS, W. R. Busch, 5837 Brooklyn Boulevard, submitted Planning Commission Application No. 75018 on June 10, 1975, as a petition for a variance from Section 35 -111 (Nonconforming Uses) of the City Ordinances to permit construction of an accessory addition to the dwelling at said premises which is zoned C -1 (Service Office Commerce); and WHEREAS, said dwelling is a residential nonconforming use of non residential zoned land under the provisions of Section 35 -111 which also stipulates, in part, that no such nonconforming use of land shall be en- larged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -240 the application was heard by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at a duly called Public Hearing on July 10, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, upon consideration of the facts; of the applicant's petition and testimony; of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; of the nonconforming use restrictions of Section 35 -111; and of the "Standards for Variances" of Section 35 -240, recommended to the City Council that the application be denied, noting that the request was not consistent with the intent of the nonconforming use restrictions and that the "Standards for Variances" were not met; and WHEREAS, the application was heard by the City Council at a duly called Public Hearing on July 21, 1975 and was deferred to permit additional review of the matter of nonconforming uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council reconsidered the application on August 18, 1975 and submitted to the file reports by the City Attorney and Planning Director regarding the legal, planning, and zoning foundations of the non conforming use restrictions and the ramifications of the subject variance request; and WHEREAS, said reports cited, in part, the necessity of nonconforming use restrictions to promote the highest and best uses of land within the zoning districts established through the Comprehensive Plan; the ramifica- tions of granting a variance which would constitute a use variance held illegal by the courts, and which involved a property whose characteristics were not unique from other properties in the C -1 District; the fact that the subject premises would be ineligible for additional accessory structures if the zoning were reverted to R -1, due to the dimensions of the dwelling and number of existing accessory uses; and possible alternatives to the variance procedure, including elimination of the nonconforming use restrictions and rezoning of all nonconforming residential properties in the C -1 zone to R -1; RESOLUTION NO. 75 -184 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: That Planning Commission Application No. 75018 submitted by W. R. Busch is hereby denied, noting the following: 1. The premises constitutes a nonconforming residential use of nonresidential zoned property as defined by Section 35 -111 and is subject to the restrictions of that Section. 2. The variance request is not consistent with the intent of the planning principles reflected by the Ordinance (a) to eliminate nonconforming uses over time; (b) to achieve the highest and best land use; (c) to establish the exclusive zoning district as determined by Comprehensive Planning and Zoning. 3. The factsand circumstances of the request do not meet the "Standards for Variances" of Section 35 -240, in that: a. There is no identifiable hardship, versus a mere inconvenience or design preference, due to the physical character of the land. b. The condition is not unique to this parcel, and the situation is common to twenty other nonconforming residential uses in the C -1 zone. c. The alleged hardship is based upon the applicant's desire and plans, and is not due to an ordinance requirement. d. Granting the variance would establish a precedent contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance intent as an un- necessary extension of the life of a nonconforming use. The detriment to other nonconforming properties in the neighborhood is the enhancement of such a property, thereby artificially increasing the value in spite of the planned commercial de- velopment. 4. A variance would constitute a change of use which is prohibited by Minnesota Statutes and is in violation of sound planning principles. September 8, 1975�� Date ayor ATTEST: CSd The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Robert Jensen and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar and Robert Jensen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.