HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 02-12 PCP N E N
VLTIG
REGULAR 11
FEBRUARY 12, 1976
1 . Call to Order 8:00 P,'k
2. Roll Call :
3. 011,pprova1 of 111-1.-Ifutes: Januarj- 22, '1976,,, 129, 1976
4. Chair-man's Explanation: Tl-n Planning Cuiumission is an advisory body. One
ol" tha CominIssion's fu;lct-iotis is to hiold Public
gs. in the matters concerned in these
lie a,r I n�,,s, t 1,;a 'ColTa"d-sc-ion makes recotitirpandations 'to
the City Council . The City Council riakes all
fin4l decis•;ons on these !;titter s
BOARD OF AWUS'11111EINITS AMD APPLEALS
S. Allan dones
Variance from 13ection. 315-40u-' -11W penaft ,,:?,.crcachmient into
rear yard for 7, ouse addition at 5a 25) Oliver Avenue Borth.
5. David Faddler 76078
Variances from Section 35-400 to pamit construction on
• substandard lot and sieteyard erirroachi-x-.'n t- at 5326 �Iryant Ave. 14.
PL�fjFjjfj(j' C0f.j"1SSj0.7-,j
7. N1. J. Dale 76009
Rezone from 1-2 to C-2 approximately 5 acres bounded
Trunk Highway 100, Axel ia Avetw1e, ard Lakcbreeze Avenue.
8. Jerry Harrint
760014
Rezoning request ?or proper-lLy at 67th and Emerson Avenues
North (tabled on J&nuary 15, 1976).
9. Jerry Harri n9(.on 76005
Preliminary Plat approval f-ror six lots at 67th and Emerson
Avenues North (tabled as January IS, 1976).
10. Discussion Items:
a. Status of Application No. 75045 submitted by Grook1yn
Center industrial Park., Inc.
b. Scheduled St-udy S,,2ssion
• c. Pending Applications
1I. Other Business:
PLAHAING COMMISSION INFORMATION 'AMEET
Application No. 76001
App!i cant: Allan E. Jones
Locatio,n: 5425) Oliver Avenue North
Request: `Variance
Tile for a variance from Section 35-400 which requires a minfinum 40 fool'.
he request is
rear yard setback from the dwelling. The applicant proposes an addition to his house
it hi would ancrualch approximately 13 feet- inta the rear v
The applicant had developed plans and had corer enced preliminary excavation work with-
out a permit when the Building, Official iknfovi-wred hiiii permits were required and the
plans were inconsistent with ordinance standards.
We have reviewed the ordinance st-andards, including variance criteria, with the
,applicant who responded with the at-atiched letter In support of his application.
A public hearing has been scheduled.
The central questiozi is whether the standards for a variance are ritat. A possible
secondary issue is whether this specific request is similar to other recent variance
requests which have stfinullateO a review of existing standards:
It is not evident that the variance standards are nit within the intent" of
the ordinance.
a. 'the applicant's problem is that the des iriad addition is too large
for the lot. The ancroaclMr-ril.* into the rear yard is not a result
of the non-rectangular lot design. Pet baps morge dwelling space
could be provided if the lot were vacant and a new hom, was planned.
The existing rad5ler div.,alling with detached garage represent a typical
layout on a standard R-1 lot. 1 house (1,152 sq.ft.) and garage
(528 sq.ft.) cover 18100 of the 9,200 sq.ft. lot. it would have been
possible, at ne-w construction, to have a house and garage On this
Scat, with about 29% ground coverage with all setbacks satisfied.
The es cab lisued legal location of the structures poses the problrem-
not. the shape of the parcel.
b. 'Uhile there i,,ray not 1-..e nLqrcrous other lots of similar design. and
,,rith similar exist in layouts, this situation is not unique and
is commwn to other parcels in thie RA =10.
Thp situation involves a standard single family hav,-_ oil a tYpi cal
R, I lot, tallt-h 14,he strActures properly located per ordinance
standards.
The proposed addition would result in a dwelling larger than the
capacity, of the property as designed.
i
i
P.C. Information Sheet Oont°d.
Application i J. 76001
C. s•he alleged hardship is generated u�.. Ahe applicant who has de-
tcnr i ned the dwelling lie rt*ved into does not nrnet the reeds of
his family, The ordinance did not create that situation; it
clues l i rai t tlae expansion capabilities of the dwelling it pre-
vt�nts this applicant from accomplishing a desired end.
±. The variance would represent an undesirable precedent Ath re-
spect to t'hea general c%riunity: the crux of the hardship is
the problem -Faced b,� a large family occupying an existing borne
which appar~nr;zl y is not large enaa�nr�la for its needs.
Pere!i�tti sag
onlargemient of an existing dwelling, which wets standards,
beyond those standard: as a function of occupancy size, is
unsound. There are lots and, normally, available homes which
can accorirn*date the i ndaredi ate needs.
2. This request differs from recent similar requests in that a major structural
enlar grenrenat is involved, vs. expansion of the dwelling into an existing
accessory portion of the structure.
I'li ire inay he v*rit in eventually cot sidering whether all yard setbacks should
be 7—duced. it does not seem feasible at this time to defer this variance
request on the basis that standards Haight change.
We cannot recorainnd approval since the standards for variances are not met.
WIV,r! ,-..... ,r+M :uu.w
411)ff
� �� •o.,n.m...wu,. ien.ua,
� .....___....._.__.�`� �f �rY .•,..,�.nusw•ra^-..�toeY,FP"F
3 � 5
y1f }�p
)' x bay
w t_�,�.,yac�a rear. =vAawm,.:y�y�ss�rmror+rmr.•
d
1
a
e
December 17, 1975
Department of Planning and Inspection
Village of Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55435
Dear Sir:
In compliance with the Standards and Procedures for Zoning Ordiance
Variances I am submitting this letter as an explanation of my reason's
for requesting a variance on my property at 5425 Oliver Avenue North.
As to paragraph (a) and (b), form #20, a particular hardship is apparent
because of the unique shape and size of my lot. It is a triangular shape
with no length or width measurements the same. (see attached sheet) .
As to the paragraph (d), I have talked with some of the neighbors and they
do not object to my having an addition and it would not affect anyones
property or view in anyway.
Mr. Blair Tremere and I have discussed the proposed addition to great
extent to see if any other means could be met to obtain the room that I
need and still stay within the Village Set-Back Ordinance which is 40 feet
in the back yard.
I'm not adding on to make a profit, but to gain additional living space
for my family. At the present time my family of eight (8) cannot sit down
and enjoy a meal together, at the same table, because of lack of room.
With economics as they are today, I cannot afford to sell the house that I
now am living in or are there any large enough in Brooklyn Center for sale
within a negotiable price range .
I've been involved in community projects and the Brooklyn Center Little
League for eight years . I have six children going to school at Brooklyn
Center High School and I like living here, but I do need more room.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
�. <7
ALLAN E. JONES
5425 OLIVER AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
560-7065
AEJ:rj
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
0301 Shingle Creek Parkway
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES
Anyo,°ae contemplating a request for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance
should consult with the Planning staff, prior to submitting an Application
to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, for purposes of familiarization
with applicable ordinance standards and evaluation of the particular cir-
cumstances .
A prospective applicant shall provide documents and information, as re-
quested by the Secretary, to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or to the
City Council . An application must be submitted fourteen (14) days prior to
the regular meeting of the Board .
in instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique
and distinctive to an individual property under consideration, the City
Council shall have the power to grant variances , in keeping with the spirit
and intent of this ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance, considered
in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the
property must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused
by the property owner or his predecessor in title shall not constitute
sufficient justification to grant a variance.
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 cir-
cumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consid-
eration. 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 :
(a) Because of the particul-7r physical surroundings , shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land in-
volved, 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.
(over)
P/I Form No. 20
(c) -,h,e 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
p-ublic welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
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 .
Copies of the Zoning ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative
Office.
Questions should be directed to the Department of Planning and Inspection,
telephone (612) 561-5440 .
ev
G
? . 44
q
EPLXJ W',,!G CO3MISSION 1i4Ft NMAT1U11i SHEET
0
Application Ile. 76008
AppIicf,t David Faddle
.ocatis n. 5326 Bryant Avenue Worth
rr�
Request. Uariarnce
U a u PS
The applicant seeks permission to construct a dwvelling on the above parcel which -7 y qV0
'is substandard in €rota; width and area. The request also involves a side yard �`c� 1
,etbacbk variance to accor date the propo5�� ;EOtRSr'.
goer;- was a single -►ani ly horn. on the parcel im,11-sl February, 1975 wlien it was
demlisued following all exralo ikm and fire.
The pc36'caul was cmated r'any yedar s ago, t` roR3c � aa3ii bounds descriptiorE, as
the north 113 of "Lot 14" whicia had been platted at 126 feet (as were all the other
sots in this addition; rivany of the other lots were subsequently divided into 63 foot
parcels as shit m orti the dr"awin 9).
The balarece of "Lot 4" is owned by the resident next door at 5324 Bryant ,Avenue N.
Tiaere is 41-ia fei;t between the house at 5324 and Oe south I ine of 'the subject parcel.
The appI.i cant states that att€s;;±-)ts to purchase addip ti canal l and from the Pei gshbor
have fa:�ne fruitless. `
There arr_ several variances from Section 35-400:
a.. Width: 33 fact variance f'rc�m the 75 foot requireirpant; an addi di uric,1 21
`•c.e i C-bul d make the lot comarabl e to sx)st of the other 63 foo E lots in
the area.
b. area: 3,213 square foot variance from the 9,5113 square foot r equireriant;
l.ii n, citionrl 21 fee : w ould create an area of 9,425 square Pea .
c. Side, f,ar�; Setback: The appbic%rt proposes a 24 foot wide d�rrelling re-
'I t-Iii q Taa'S W`Nobt vs 10 foot setback on the south side.
The tiort recent similar request was Application Pilo. 75015 submtitied by James Parma;o
at 54t,4g Emrson Avenue si. That case involved a 0 foot platted lot and the approval
com,preNe,nded pcm,.as: ion to build and a 3 root side yard setback: variance on both
sides of the propos d house.
While hoth parcels are in the R-2 zone of the southeast neighborhood, there are at
least three si oni f 8 carat di f reren ces. Unlike the E.mrson Avenue parcel , Vie subjcct.
Property 1) &rt s nOt abut an alley; Z) has vacant land adjacent to it; 3) is not,
beind developed by the ourner-occui cant (or proposed occupant).
PL Information she.'et. 'Cont'dl
Application No�, 76008.
The, 1"'ormer uwnvroccupan-� submItted a similar application last year "ollming, the
explosion and fire. lle witadrew the application, however, upon deciding to ny)ve
elsewl�!�ria and' to transfer th-a property to a builder,
Denial of the requestr. is •ecommiamded., as a RVIL-ter of sound planning, A request
to build on a substandard lot twould be in order at such that addition property
is add:vd to the pcirycelgr a lot width (63 -feet) consistent, with other parceis
in this Subdivision.
Or
0 Pill 3A J_ rlJ v �.li l;R_
�:NIWV.IT
1,k,
C7
Z k
- vA ti
—zv
iz
ion,
3
3.7
Hp,
PLANNING IN Ct3 HMISSiON INFOIF44ATION' SUET
Application 4o. 76009
Applicant: W. J. Dale
Location,. Multi-parcel tract lying southerly of
Lak,ebreeze, easterly of Aznl is Avenue
-and w_-sterl,y of Trunk Highway 100
d :guest: Rezone
The applicant proposes to rezone, from 1 -2 to C-2, the above property which consists
of appeoximatel.y E acres. The Und is platted into 'live 114.83 ft. x 3:7.70 ft. logs
facing L kAbreeze Avenue {one of which has been reduced by Trunk Hicghwizy 100 right-
of-way) ; and six 45.3 ft. x 210.33 ft. lots facing Aye?is Avenue.
^ (tje }arc"a! ilid ustry) has been the designatert zoning since the Co,,T)reh*ansiye Land
Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance were adopted.
The appliCant initiated the request for the entire area after contemplating a spot
Zoning of t4;o parcels, aaearest Trunk HigWay 100 to acconm, date a restaurant. We
had discouraged he spot zorlinrg p�,oposal.
We have real @s0 •enfGML1 � the applicant that the land use zoning and polities in the
soutlw-est PP ghbarboad will be a priority item for the Connipre.hensIve Plan revisions;
and, in the centext of sound area wdde planning, this specific request may be pre-
soature
There have been no developwnt playas for 1-2 uses in this area; It is not clear
w,lhether the applicant has pursued such developiiLani . He does feel �tha t C-2 zoning
would f ar fll tate the specula;ion and eventual development- of the 1 and v
A Public; hear^ang has been scheduled.
Prelininary comasiderations includle:
1. deed for a rAst;r plan layout for the six acre tract, showing feasible
pleating and acress.
2- E10&1r1,bi1 tY Of 43 C-1 a"s"ea c?cUacerit to Azelia Avenue across From, the
R-2 Properties.
3. Feasibility of including the 1arga, ,s aca, t 1-2 tract to the south in
any rezoning actioro. y
4. A'sysis Of Pro;;ect.ed t,, aQFflc generation and of the capacity of
euistin'g facilities.
Wasis"tent With COMMissiOn Policy the itcm should be refarred to the Soutliuest
Neighbori�ood Advisory Group for review anti conina mt.. ;also, additional informational
SrbY ufir E"'a��; :should be specified so the applicant can pre need with providing the
d aba du"ing 'die interim.
I
I
E EI a
_ — p
1 t^ r-RRY A'dE �' \•1 U
rn
r� � � r♦
f
r r
t � d
Tw1N LAKEII AVE
fn
x,XtVjx
r
V E w AVE '
�
'`� f► r
76 � AZEIiA AV L
rn 0 ' -n to
<
110 r —
EWING —
rt �
m
`I
AVE
Sue
PLANNING C)Miil,!ISSIOIM WFOPMATION SHEET
Appl i cation Na.
App's i can'("-.- Jerry Harringfton
Locati 01.: 67th and Everson Avenues Worth
Request: Rezoning
The i w t t was heard on january 15, 1976 and tabled to permit review and commint
by the Northeast Neigh'" rhood Advisory Group.
-
The G, oup r..,e3t on January 28, 1976, and the chaf,'I.: n t o the sub),itted a letter
file rec ors Landing approval .
The kpyiposal to r;--zono the west parcel frOm R.-3 '(;Q 2 •5 and the east parcel fro,
R-3 to R-1 is consistent with both -the Con,4)reheyisive Plan and the statod preference
0'1' the rzeiqhborhood
Mot'icex- v;ere senll- to neighboring property owners.
Approval is re,-=,,wherded subject to trhwe provision that, pursuant to Section 35-210 (2)
',Review o-F Rezoning", the west parcel rkiy be re zoned CO R-3 should no structural
work conzience thereon within tviii years of approval
�q r
UJ
R -LOA
s
PLANNING (COMMUSSION INFOMITIM SHEET
Application No. 76005
App I is an t: Jerry 1-1-arringt-on
Locait'"a on: 67th and Eimerson Avenues North
Req 1�st-, Preliminary Plat
T'Ms itepm was heard on 13anuary 15, '11)76 and 16-abledo pending disposition of
Application No. 76004.
The request 'Involves both parcels involved in the rezoning; while the west
parcel would be physically the same, the east parcel would be divided into
six R--I lots.
The Director of Public tiorks will be prepared to discuss the plat.
Approval would be subject to tha following:
1. Final plat is subject. to review- by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the raquirenrnts of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
C
r
�+un�'.«+�s�..t♦ � .w�-�rrya�wrwuymyy,
t
iL
wwuNF b b, � d�i, �Y.A•�, ,4n, .a Y��� f�T
•
I