Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 08-17 PCP P, 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 17, 1995 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - June 29, 1995 4. Chairperson's Explanation 5. Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck 95011 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. 6. Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck 95012 Variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-106g of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a corner lot in the R-1 zoning district less than 90' in • width. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment M Planning Commission Information Sheet 0, pplication No. 95011 Applicant: Robert L and Marlene A. Overpeck Location: 5500 Emerson Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicants are requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R-1 and is bounded on the west by Emerson Avenue North, with single family homes located on the opposite side; on the north by a single family home; on the east by a single family home and an off-site parking lot owned by Harron Methodist Church; and on the south by 55th Avenue North with R-2 zoned land containing a single family home on the opposite side of the street. Currently the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North is made up of two lots (Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Littell Addition) which have been combined for tax purposes and contain a large, old two-story frame house and a three car garage. The size of the combined lot is 195 ft. (along Emerson Avenue) by approximately 135.4 ft. deep (for a total of approximately 26,400 sq. ft. in area. The proposed legal description of the new lots is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Overpeck Addition. The lots would be divided as follows: Lot Tvoe Width R q'd Depth Read Area Required 1 Interior 107.40' 75' 135.44' 110' 14,548 sq. ft. 9,500 sq. ft. •2 Corner 87.60' 90' 135.41' 110' 11,864 sq. ft. 10,500 sq. ft. There is a lot width variance requested on Lot 2 of the proposed plat (see application No. 95012) to allow a corner lot in an R-1 zone less than 90 ft. in width. 'The proposed plat shows 5 ft. drainage and utility easements around all of the property lines. The new corner lot does have sewer and water services stubbed into the property line. A water service is shown in the boulevard right-of-way area adjacent to the existing house, however, the survey does not indicate that the house is hooked up to sewer and water. We will need to verify hook ups, and if the house is not hooked up to sewer and water, it will have to be as a condition of plat approval. The existing two-story house is set back between 9.1 ft. and 9.8 ft. from the Emerson Avenue right-of- way. This is an existing situation not created by the proposed subdivision and is allowed to continue. The house will be set back 10 ft. from the proposed line dividing the two properties. This is being done to leave a minimum 10 ft. side yard setback, which will allow doors, windows and openings along this side wall. It is because of trying to maintain this minimum 10 ft. setback that the corner lot is proposed to be only 87.6 ft. in width. A side yard setback of less than 10 ft. can be allowed provided it is no closer than 5 ft., that there are no doors, windows or openings along the side wall that is less than 10 ft. from the property line and furthermore, that there is a minimum 10 ft. setback on the opposite side yard. The south wall serves as the entrance to the house and it would be undesirable to-alter it, therefore, the 10 ft. minimum setback is being maintained. It should be noted that the proposed corner lot abuts an off-site accessory parking lot owned by the Harron 8-17-95 Paae 1 a 4 Methodist Church. In 1980, under Planning Commission Application No. 80028, the City Council granted Harronn Methodist Church a Special Use Permit to construct.this off-site accessory parking lot (see attached minures). At that time, the City Council acknowledged that existing shrubbery on adjacent lots provided adequate screening of the parking lot, but condition No. 8 of the approval states "should the existing screening to the north and/or west of the site fail, the church shall replace such screening with a minimum 6 ft. high opaque screening device as required by city ordinances." It is possible with the development of the corner lot for a single family home that the shrubs which serve to screen this parking lot might be removed. This would mean that the church would be responsible for screening its parking lot from this residential property. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat and notice of the Commission's consideration has appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. A public hearing is also required as part of the variance requested under Planning Commission Application No. 95012, and it would be appropriate to hold both hearings concurrently. If the variance application (95012) is approved for this subdivision, I would recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the final provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall provide appropriate sewer and water service for Lot 1 as approved by the City Engineer, prior to final plat approval. 8-17-95 Page 2 �• DES lrl Ell L�1_.'' � r:�t 64TY r.• CL-� ORG f c; 62NO 01A A �uw1j� W: •� • � 1 �"� � ��• i ; �1 i z e ..v�-�, � GIST C 02 a =i � �' 60TH C2 M NTH = I 1 I TH I 58TH EER ~~ �Appl i cati on='' ( I Lt= No. 95011 & m,+ .�. �. !• I srrH 95012 1 ; 54TH NCsi ��' .I--.=may: �� ►=,� ��E��Cam` ��' � � =c3 ��I (—"' :< �:., � � � OKLYN ZONING DISTRICTS NTER ALL DIM,ICT SCIUNOARIES EXrBlD TO TrE M4 ME OF STREFS ALL ARE S NOT OTir.ERWISE DESIGNATE, ARE R1 1200 18CO RESIDENCE 00WERCF t 6ARA6E 31Tu►AI�4auS 17R1UQ. - `v 60.K Wm e44 gatdl .03 I(1 3°T �o �' -�---- 6*44 �N 1 IS _ p(LAINAG£ k UTILITY aSCMENT'� I bt3bb 84181 jy 0 5 :3 ITU� (Z.IVE,.... . — STORY T • 4.3 3 I m I CAR ;4•� r I 8as.o9� I6.33 � 84.4.13 a45.1s _ � 1 1 N t6•o 1 645.46 845.75 evs.3 O 1 Q A 7.8 ' I I I I 1 .1M L = 04'5. �� STORY Lt FaAME -s Rio sr.��itt+ N Iuiats I V1 TyHN 4 i2• / a44.9 -- 5'04 35. 4-- MAPLE �„ W) t I eas•oz 645 d Se4'4 I .cn 0 Ose44i 7� 0 0 844 3� V- t .1 ;o N •8+4.43 Z w � ? LU I I i 1 { s4•c.o .as4se ,,� � I 2 ETI5 Ac� I i I T �� 443.53 '� \C- ytf.91 _. -r b•!. 843.97 � ;• w• _— e4a.96 5� . Co►.�CRETE 13S.4t-- vVaLK 64394 F9. BIT 843zq 843?'- �o�r.oP g�TUMItiGUS g!4.II Fa. air. Co. $IT. 843.:4 Eo. a ir. Q Ea. Bit , I 2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on Lot 6 (5419 Fremont) that encroaches onto Lot 7. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed from 7:53 p.m. to 7:57 p.m. to allow Commissioner Malecki and the Planning Assistant to make emergency phone calls. APPLICATION NO. 80028 and 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, site and building plan and special use permit approval for an off-site accessory parking lot at the northwest corner of 55th and Dupont Avenue North serving Harron United Methodist Church located at the same intersection. The Planning Assistant also reviewed the staff report for a variance from Section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the greenstrip between off-street parking and street right-of-way. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 80028 and 80029 attached) . Following the presentation of both staff reports, the Planning Assistant noted that the applicant proposed chains to be placed across the entrance at 55th Avenue and at the entrance at Dupont Avenue North in order to control cut-through traffic. He also noted that the plans were to be revised to indicate a shrub row along Dupont and 55th Avenues within the greenstrip area to pro- vide the screening required by the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, the Superintendent of Engineering confirmed that the driveways to the parking lot would be concrete on 55th Avenue, but bituminous on Dupo t Avenue since improvements are scheduled for Dupont in the near uture. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the church is located in the R2 zone and the parking lot in the R1 zone. She asked why a rezoning of the church was not being pursued since the off-site accessory lot would be located in a zone more restrictive than that of the principal use which is forbidden by Section 35-701 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Assistant responded that Section 35-701 also provides that "for the purposes of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, institutional R1 uses shall be considered the same as C1 uses . " He stated that the church and the property on which the parking lot- was to be built were, for the purposes . of Section 35-701, *both C1 in nature. He also pointed out the example of Cross of Glory Lutheran Church which is in the R1 zone, but which also provides parking space for an office to the south. This arrangement, he said, would be precluded if Commissioner Sim- mons ' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance were applied. Com- missioner Simmons acknowledged this example, but expressed a con- cern that the City could get into trouble approving such an ar- rangement across zones. The Secretary pointed out that justifying the rezoning of the church would be equally difficult since it could be considered a case of spot zoning. He stated that the case is simply one of 8-14-80 -2- a church using church property and that the use is. essentially the same for the two properties. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the ordinance had been amended for the specific purpose of allowing off-site accessory parking arrangements on church land. The Secretary answered that this was part of the intent, but added that a number of previous ap- provals of off-site accessory parking arrangements with insti- tutional R1 uses implied the same understanding sought by the recent ordinance revision. The Planning Assistant added that the ordinance speaks of off-site accessory parking within zoning districts of the same or less restriction as that of the princi- pal use. He pointed out that the Brookdale Office Tower which is located in the C2 Zoning District would certainly be allowed to have an off-site accessory parking arrangement with a Cl pro- perty since the office building is a Cl type use. He pointed out that the church is essentially an institutional R1 use with- in the R2 zone, and therefore, the parking lot does not introduce a use not permitted in the R1 zone. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Planning Assistant stated that the staff prefer that the church obtain an easement from the property to the west for snow storage and drain- age purposes. However, he pointed out,. the 2h' greenstrip along the west property line would be adequate to meet the screening re- quirement between off-street parking and Rl uses. He stated that if the property owners to the west withdraw their permission to allow snow storage and drainage from the parking lot over the pro- �. perty, the snow from the parking lot would simply have to be re- moved in some other fashion. The Secretary explained that approval of the site plan for the parking lot essentially defers the screen- ing requirement between the parking lot and the Rl use, such screen- ing to be provided by the church on its own property if the lilacs on the neighboring property were to fail. Commissioner Simmons noted that the snow being stored on the parking lot will *wind up forcing cars onto the street, thus negating the benefit of the parking lot. The Secretary acknowledged this possibility, but pointed to the difficult circumstances surrounding the application and the need to weigh priorities. Chairman Hawes noted that a variance to allow a 10 ' greenstrip and regular size parking stalls would eliminate one stall. The Secretary noted that the proposed handicapped stall is not required and the extra space from that stall could allow for the same number of spaces to be placed along the east side of the lot. Chairman Hawes asked whether a concrete median through the center of the lot would serve to control cut-through traffic. The Planning Assistant answered that while this probably could be accomplished without reducing the number of parking stalls in the lot, it would be much more costly, both in terms of installation and maintenance, without being much more effective than chaining off the parking lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Gilbert Engdahl, a former Planning Commission member and a member of Harron United Methodist Church, asked the Commission whether concrete curb would be required -around the parking lot. Chairman Hawes responded that this was an ordinance requirement for all off-street Parking. Chairman Hawes asked whether the curb would extend to the street. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that curb need only be installed up to the property line. A resident from the neighborhood of the church stated that screen- ing the parking lot from the street with a fence would look ugly. Chairman Hawes answered that the intent of the approval is for a shrub row to provide that screening rather than a fence. The Secretary pointed out that screening of off-street parking lots more than six stalls in size is required by the zoning Ordinance. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Assistant explained that the first reason for ap- proving the variance applied for under Application No. 80029 acknowledges a set of priorities which accurately reflect the pub- lic interest in this particular case. He stated that the prior- ities acknowledged for this approval were different than those adopted in the Howe Fertilizer case where it was considered more - important to provide buffering and landscaping between the industrial use and neighboring residences than to eliminate parking deficiencies. He stated that these priorities are not fixed for all cases, but must continually be re-examined in the light of particular circum- stances. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80028 (Harron United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application .No. 80028, site and building plan and special use permit approval of a 40 stall off-site acces- sory parking lot located at the northwest corner of Dupont and 55th, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City .Manager) shall be entered into by the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit. 3. The site plan shall be modified to indicate screening of the parking lot from residences across Dupont and across 55th Avenue North in accordance with Section 35-711 of the City Ordinances prior to consideration by the City Council. 4. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance comprehended by Application No. 80029. regarding a greenstrip encroachment. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City's Ordinance. 8-14-80 , -4- 6. The approved plan shall be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior to the issuance of permits, 7. The Special Use Permit for Accessory Off-Site Parking comprehended by Section 35-701 Sub- division 3 is issued to the Harron United Methodist Church and is nontransferable. 8. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. Should the existing screening to the north and/or the west of the site fail, the Church shall replace such screening with a minimum 6 ' high opaque screening device as required by City Ordinances. * Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80029, a request for a variance from Section 35-700 of the City Ordinances to allow a 10 ' greenstrip along the east property line of the parking lot to serve Harron United Methodist Church, for the following reasons: 1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well would be adversely affected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the finding that the priorities outlined below accurately reflect the public interest in this particular case) . a. Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide, as far as possible, adequate parking for the church. b. Maintain ordinance standards for parking and- driving lanes to ensure that the lot functions - properly in accommodating- church traffic. C. Provide screening of off-street parking areas as required by City Ordinance. d. Provide adequate green space on the site. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique in .that the parcel in question is to be put to use to alleviate an existing deficiency in the parking required for the church and will not a recog- nized as --- - - ­ 1Cl1V.L1 Cu=ll LJ of the Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land in that it was platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to institutional needs. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as the conditions attaching to the approval of the site plan are met. APPLICATION NOS . 80030 and 80031 (Merila-Hansen/Village Builders) The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for a 10 unit townhouse project to be located on the west side of Humboldt, just north of 67th Avenue *North. He reviewed the contents of Staff Report Nos. 80030: •and 80031 (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 80030 and 80031 attached) . Following the presentation of the staff report, Chairman Hawes asked for a clarification of whether the trees located presently where the buildings are to stand would have to be replaced. . The Planning Assistant answered that only those trees shown on the site plan as part of the landscaping for the site would have to be replaced should they be removed during construction or die out prematurely. Commissioner Manson asked why the staff recommended 6" rather than 8" sewer pipe at the west end of the project. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that there are difficulties presented by feeding a larger pipe into a smaller pipe as proposed by the appli- cant. Chairman Hawes asked whether five stalls for guest parking would be adequate. The Secretary answered that the proposal provides four parking stalls per unit as opposed to the ordinance require- ment of two per unit. The Secretary also pointed out that the density credit for the proposed project is optional at the dis- cretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that this credit was extended to two previous townhouse develop- ments and that in light of the R5 zoning of the land, approval of the density credit could be justified. Mr. James Merila, representing Village Builders, pointed out that the site provides 45 parking stalls as opposed to 20 required by the ordinance. He explained that the 16 ' wide driveways were pro- posed in order to allow more green area between driveways. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the reason the driveways were widened was to provide the same amount of area within the .drive- way as would be required for two normal parking spaces. Mr. Merila took issue with the requirement outlined in the staff report to replace all trees that die off with trees that will grow to a comparable size. He stated that if there is a significant die-off of existing trees , the applicant would prefer to then sub- mit a new landscape plan. He pointed out that the amount of land- scaping provided on the site with the. existing trees is far in ex- cess of what would normally be required on a barren site. Commis- sioner Simmons pointed out that many of the trees on the site are- elms and that if one dies, the rest are likely to. die also. Chair- man HawPc a q,,-=A v- v!, i I i i I I Mr. Beisner presented a photograph of the City Hall and Civic Center to the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to authorize the staff to prepare an official letter of thank you to Mr. Beisner for his photograph. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Application No. 80027 submitted by Frank Lachinski and explained the application was a request to resubdivide two 401 X 128' lots at 5419 Fremont Avenue North, which were combined formerly for tax purposes. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 80027 at its August 14, 1980 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections explained that the area surrounding the site is developed into single family homes. He proceeded to present and review the Planning Commission information sheet on Application No. 80027 and also presented and reviewed the Planning Commission minutes discussing Application No. 80027 on pages one through two. He explained that the application does not create but only reestablishes a property line -which makes a 40' substandard width. He explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Application No. 80027, a request to resubdivide lot six and lot - seven of Fairhaven Park Addition which were combined formerly for tax purposes, subject to the following conditions: 1. The resubdivision is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the City Assessor prior to filing with the County. 2. The resubdivision approval: does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on lot six (5419 Fremont) 'that encroaches onto lot seven. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 80028 submitted by Harron United Methodist Church for -site plan and special use permit approval to construct a 39 stall parking lot at the northwest corner of 55th and Dupont for off-site accessory parking. He explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 80028 at its August 14, 1980 meeting. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether it might not be appropriate to take Application No. 80028 and 80029 together since the second application was. also submitted by Harron United Methodist Church and is requesting a variance from section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires off street parking to be 15 feet from the street right- of-way. The Director of Planning and Inspections stated that he saw no problem with handling both the applications together and proceeded to present and review for Council members the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Applications No. 80028 and 80029. He also presented and reviewed for Council members the August 14, 1980 Planning Commission minutes pertaining to the two applications. He explained the request in the application is for 39 stalls, not 40 stalls as is indicated in the Planning Commission minutes. He noted the 8-25-80 _8_ church has used this area for years as unimproved parking and stated that the uniqueness of this application is that the church has used this area as unimproved parking for years. The Director of Planning and Inspections noted that the Planning Commission approved both applications at its August 14, 1980 meeting and reviewed the conditions under which the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Director of Planning and Inspections stated that the plan sub- mitted by Harron United Methodist Church today is different from the one shown to the Planning Commission in that the new plan does not show the chain gate at the entrance to the parking lot. He explained that public hearings were required for both the special use permit and also the variance request. Council- member Lhotka inquired whether the entrance chains should be included in the conditions. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that it was his understanding that the chains would be included as a condition set by the Planning Commission. He noted that conditions three and six of' the Planning Commission conditions have already been met by the applicant. Councilmember Scott inquired whether the church is aware that the snow piling on the .adjacent property may come to an end if a new owner occupies that property and does not agree to allowing the church to dump the snow on the property. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Engdahl who stated that he is representing the Harron United Methodist Church in this project and stated that he is aware the church may have to haul away the snow in the event that they cannot pile it on their neighbor's property. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Applica- tions No. 80028 and 80029. He inquired whether there was anyone who wished to speak to the applications. No one appeared to speak. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar•to close the public hearing on Applications No. 80028 and 80029. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a -motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Application No. 80028 site and building plan and special use permit approval of a 39 stall off-site accessory parking lot located at the _northwest corner of Dupont and 55th, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be entered into by J the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit. I 3. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance comprehended by Application No. 80029 regarding a green strip encroachment. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to chapter .34 of the City Ordinances. 5. The special use permit for accessory off-site parking comprehended by section 35-701 subdivision 3 is issued to the Harron United Methodist Church and is nontransferable. �. 6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. Should the existing screening to the north and/or west of the site fail, the church shall replace such screening with a minimum six foot high opaque screening device as required by City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall provide chain gates at the entrances to the parking lot. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 80029, a request for a variance from section 35-700 of the City Ordinances to allow a ten foot green strip along the east property line of the parking lot to serve Harron United Methodist Church, for the following reasons: 1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well, would be adversely affected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the findings that the priorities outlined below accurately reflect the public interest in this particular case.) a. Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide, as far as possible, adequate parking for the church. b. Maintain ordinance standards for-parking and driving lanes to ensure that the lot functions properly in accommodating church traffic. c. Provide screening of off street parking areas as required by City Ordinance. d. Provide adequate drain space to the site. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique in that the parcel in question is to be put to use to alleviate an. existing deficiency in the parking required for the church and will not be recognized as grounds for further expansion. 3. The alledged hardship is related to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land in that it was platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to institutional needs. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as the conditions attached to the approval of the site plan are met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Applications No. 80030 and 80031. He stated that Application No. 80030 was submitted by Merila-Hansen/Village Builders, Inc. for site and building plan approval to construct a ten unit townhouse project west of Humboldt, just north of 67th Avenue North. Application No. 80031, he stated, was submitted by Merila-Hansen/Village Builders for preliminary plat approval to create ten townhouse lots in one common area on a property described on Applica- tion No. 80030. Fie added that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Applications No. 80030 and 80031 at its August 14, 1980 meeting. Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 95012 Applicant: Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck Location: 5500 Emerson Avenue North Request: Variance The applicants request approval of a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-106g of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a subdivision in the R-1 zoning district which would result in the creation of a corner lot less than 90 ft. in width. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of 55th and Emerson Avenues and is the subject of a requested Preliminary Plat Approval under Planning Commission Application No. 95011. The application is subject to the standards contained in Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance and those contained in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The applicants have submitted a brief letter requesting the variance noting that the proposed variance is only 2.4 ft. below the minimum 90 ft. width for a corner lot. They state that it is their intention to sell this lot or place a single family residence on it. They note the lot size (11,864 sq. ft.) and setback requirements allow adequate footage to accomplish placement of a home on that lot. They also note that they believe this would be a positive influence on the neighborhood as well as additional tax base for Brooklyn Center. • The letter really does not address the standards contained in the above cited provisions of the ordinance. The language contained in these provisions relate to uniqueness, hardship and non-detrimental effect on nearby property. There has developed over the years a policy regarding lot variances that the City has followed and a number of variances have been granted utilizing this policy. The policy is basically that lot variances will be granted if the following apply: 1. At least two of three lot standards (width, depth, and area) are met. 2. There are no resulting setback deficiencies created by the allowed subdivision. 3. The proposal generally seems reasonable, does not create any unorthodox situations such as lack of frontage on a public street and the variance is minimized. The above policy appears to be met in this case. The lot on which the existing two-story house will be located is 107.4 ft. in width with an approximate 135.4 ft. depth and an area of 14,548 sq. ft. all of which exceed the minimum standards for an interior lot. The proposed corner lot would be 87.6 ft. in width with an average depth of approximately 135.4 ft. and a lot area of 11,864 sq. ft. exceeding the lot depth and area requirements contained in the ordinance. The reason the new corner lot is 2.4 ft. short of the minimum 90 ft. width requirement is to maintain a 10 ft. interior yard building setback requirement for the existing 8-17-95 Page 1 house. As pointed out in the previous report, if a side yard setback is less than 10 ft., no doors, windows and openings are allowed to be along the side wall where such a setback would exist. It would be possible to have a 90 ft. corner lot, but would require extensive remodeling and alteration to the home to create the entrance that the applicants propose to have for this home. It, therefore, seems reasonable to allow the 2.4 ft. setback variance on the proposed corner lot. A public hearing has been scheduled with this variance request and notices to surrounding property owners have been set. It would be appropriate to hold the public hearing for the Variance concurrently with the public hearing for Preliminary Plat approval required under Application No. 95011. In conclusion, we believe the standards for Variance contained in both the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance are met as well as the long standing policy utilized by the City for granting relatively minor lot width variances. Any action should cite the variance standards and compliance with the city policy mentioned above. 8-17-95 Page 2 _ f - �h IP �� ■ / mmm �� Ica �� � �a �_� � �, \ •� - O mm - �� - 1 m- -m WMW � 22 ME M- tea. s r Ma mm mm mm IN in MM Am ��� ��r � � � cam:: — ■ _ Cc a :.� _ _ 15-112 Section 15-112 VARIANCES. The council may authorize a variance from these regulations when in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In granting any variance the council shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its findings as required herein below, the council shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the propsoed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance, the council shall find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application,of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant o the reasonable use of his land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. b. Application for any such variance shall be made in writing by the subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is filed for the consideration of the council, stating fully and clearly all facts relied upon by the petitioner and shall be supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the council in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such covenants, restrictions, or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan. Section 15-112 Revised 2-95 • i 35-240 d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy-eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty-eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of referral to the Board. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: i 35-240 a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties.