Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC82039 - 10/14/82 - 2100 54th AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 7�';Dk) PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission 1<:5,�k. City Vault Minutes: City Council I (-'t D' s ;�' City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault (`I i "1 (If�— PLANNING CO�;I MI SS I ON APPL I CAT11 O(; Application No. 82039 Please Print C1 early or Ty e Street Location of Property 2100 54th Ave., No. Legal Description of Property Lot nine (9)0,•Block four (4)0 John Ryden Second Addition Owner John R. and Eileen J. Clifford Address Applicant 2100 54th Ave., No., Brooklyn Center, rut 55430 Phone No. 560-8872 John R. and Eileen J. Clifford Address 2100 54th Ave., No., Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance Phone No. 560-8872 Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: We request a variance to allow the enlargement of our garage, continuing the same front setback determined for the original house and attached garage. This will maintain the same front setback as the adjacent properties. The applicant rec;uests processing of Luis application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen 115) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state-, meat, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily requI red by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the appl i ca.t i oit s'nal i not relieve Lite applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to y:i th; rawai . Fee $ 50.00 , ' - Applicant's Signature Receipt No. 59320 Date: Septenber 27, 1982 _ .,..,.,...__..... __.._..,._,_..._._ PLAy:dIP;J CiJnti10t.i PCCEDAiION ..�..._._.�..�..__ ._ Dates of P.C. C'onsidaration. %o� z, Approved )._ Denied following conditions: th i s _� day of Q �� CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved_ Denied this day of t _ amendment: 19 4e , subject to the airman 19 Z2_._.,_wi th the following r/I Form No.. 18 (over please) Cler' Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82039 Applicant: John Clifford Location: 2100 - 54th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of an existing garage along a building line set back 34' from the front property line, rather than the required 35'. The property in question is zoned R1 and is surrounded by other single-family homes. Facts of the Case The house in question was built with a single -car attached garage in 1954 under building permit #2580. It was constructed at the same time as the two houses to the east and one to the west on the north side of 54th Avenue North. The setback for all four of these houses was listed on the permits as 35' 6". A survey prepared for Mr. Clifford in 1956 shows that at least three of the four homes are set back 34' from the front property line rather than 35' 6". (Note: In 1954, an ordinance provision was in effect which allowed homes to be built at less than 35' from the front property line if homes on either side were built at less than 35'. However, such an allowance, if applicable in this case, would have been noted on the building permit). It appears, therefore, that an error of 1' 6" was made during the footing inspection. The applicant now wishes to add an additional stall to his garage along the existing 34' setback line. To expand a nonconforming structure is not permitted under Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance, but has been permitted in the past by variance. Such a variance, is therefore, being sought in this case. Precedent There are at least five cases since 1968 which have dealt with the same issue of expanding a structure along an existing building line which is nonconforming as to setback. Four of these applications were approved (71067, 74026, 76060 and 77047); one was denied (74054). In all these previous cases, the extent of the existing encroachment is greater (both in actual distance and in percentage terms) than in the present case. In at least one case (76060), the existing nonconformity resulted from a surveying error which the Building Official did not seek to have corrected. The Council's approval of that variance specifically cited the previous error and accepted the proposed addition since it maintained the same building line. Application No. 71067 was a variance request to allow an addition to the rear of an existing family room which had a sideyard setback of 7' (sideyard setback re- quirements for living space were then 10'). The addition was to follow the established setback line. In approving this application the City Council and Planning Commission noted the fact that there is sufficient precedent for approval of an addition in line with the existing building. Application No. 74026 was a request to allow an addition to an existing single-family home which had an existing front yard setback of 25' rather than the required 35'. The applicant wanted to continue to use the existing or established 25' setback as the front setback for the addition. The record indicates that the houses on both sides of the applicant's also had 25' setbacks and appears to be a factor in the granting of this variance in that the house and the addition would be consistent with the setbacks of neighboring dwellings. 10-14-82 -1- Application No. 82039 continued Application No. 76060 was a request to allow an addition to an existing family room which had a 6' sideyard setback (10' was then the minimum requirement). This build- ing setback was due to a 1960 surveying error which the Building Official.at the time did not seek to correct and the living space was allowed to be built at less than the minimum setback requirement. The proposed addition was to follow the existing setback approval of the variance acknowledged the error and allowed the addition to follow the existing or established setback line. Application No. 77047 was a request to allow a living space addition to an existing single-family home which had a 4' sideyard setback and 29' front yard setback. The proposal would fill in various "notchs" on the house and also encroach an additional 2' into the front yard setback. That proposal, the record indicates, would not "aggrevate the existing noncomplying" sideyard deficiency, but would continue with the 4' setback. The rationale for allowing a further encroachment into the front setback was apparently based on the neighboring homes that also had front setback deficiencies. Application No. 74054 which was denied was a request to add living space above an existing garage that was deficient in both front setback and sideyard setback. The garage had been allowed to be built by the City Council using an old averaging formula for the last time because the Council was sympathetic totheapplicant's desire to have a garage. Also, the garage was to be built into a bank and would not intrude into the open space of the setback.. One distinction between this variance which was denied and the ones which were approved seems to be that living space over the accessory space and the encroachment into the open space of the setback. The other variances were for living space additions to already existing living space or encroachments into setbacks already encroached upon by neighboring properties. It should be noted that, since the controversy over Howe Fertilizer and more generally since the mid 1970's (when there was a concerted effort to reduce the number of variances through ordinance amendments and consistent policy), the policy of the City has been to allow expansion of nonconforming structures provided the addition met setback requirements. Any variation from setback requirements has had to meet the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35-240 (reviewed below). The Applicant's Case The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the variance request should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The proposed addition will maintain the existing 34' front yard setback established on the block. 2. The added garage space will provide covered parking for two autos and thus enhance the neighborhood. 3. To comply with the 35' setback requirement would be unattractive, render the existing garage not usable, and be excessively expensive. 4. The setback error was made at the time of construction (1954-55). The dwelling is set back 36.2' and the Planning Director has suggested that an averaging method was used in 1955 which considered the house in general to be set back 35'. (Staff suggested such a formula of intra-house as opposed to inter -house averaging may have been in effect. In fact, it was not). 10-14-82 -2- Application No. 82039 continued 5. Further delay in issuing this permit will preclude construction before winter. Mr. Clifford also states that denial of the variance request would cause undue hardship because of the unique circumstances distinctive to the property under consideration and would not reflect the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Ordinance Provisions 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 qualifi- cations are met: (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 improve- ments in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Staff Reasoning We feel that it is at least debatable whether the proposal really meets all the standards for a variance outlined above. It is debatable whether constructing the additional garage stall one foot or more behind the existing building line constitutes a hardship. It is debatable whether such a construction would be expensive or render the existing garage useless, or even look necessarily un- attractive. And it is debatable whether the situation in question is necessarily unique. The houses along this block are all set back 34 feet. The circumstance results from an error, (either on the part of the building inspector or perhaps the 1956 survey is inaccurate) not from the lay of the land. The fact that the error is consistent in the neighborhood may suggest some uniqueness. We do not suggest, however, that granting the variance will be detrimental, in any substantial way, to other property in the neighborhood or for that matter the community. 10-14-82 -3- Application No. 82039 continued The fact that considerable precedent exists for the granting of similar variances makes the denial of this variance a matter more of equal protection than the meeting of all of the standards. If the Commission chooses to make a favorable recommendation with respect to this variance, it should cite the fact that there is considerable precedent through the granting of other similar variances and the variance would not have a detrimental effect on neighboring property. The Commission, if it feels these types of variances have an eroding affect on the ordinance, may well wish to discuss ways to legally correct the situation. However, we do not feel it would be appropriate to hold up this application pending some possible policy change. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 10-14-82 -4- C2 iJ Ic_ i LA [--4 — LLI _ _-+ a J X \r 5h SCHOOL, L i--- r7 _ i i / r LLJ APPLICATION NO . l 82039 -�ANC w - o 4TH - UJI w -7 G _ 1 Cfl K OF M/NNEAP0L /S CITY (1F