Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC84019 - 6/14/84 - 5115 East Twin Lake BlvdPLANNING CONEMSSION FILE CHECKLIST FILE INFORMATION File Purge Date:—... Planning Commission Application No. <9116,17 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: K/ 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 Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission/�h`�e ����� City Vault Minutes: City Council City Vault Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council 8 y-/o-,✓ (7/4/�3y) City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF,RP,�WLYIJ CFNTER PLANNING APPLICATION Application No. 84019 Street Location of Property_ Legal Description of Property Owner John Guider Address Applicant Please Print Clearly or Type 5115 East Twin Lake Boulevard 5115 East Twin Lake Boulevard Same Phone No. 535-3757 Address Phone No. Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval XX Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: a) To allow conversion of existing garage to dwelling space 4' from side property line and b) to build a new attached garage 7' from side property line on other side of house. The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. e Fee $ 50.00 Applicant's Signature Receipt No. 64257 Date: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: L� Approved Denied 1, this day of 19k4l% subject to the following conditions: airman CITY COUNCIL ACTION ("(?' c �� -n,� "2-S y l l Dates of Council Consideration:WQ (?me H Denied his Way of _ 911x— with the following e!, r ui e P/I Form No. 18 (over please) 71 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84019 Applicant: John Guider Location: 5115 E. Twin Lake Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a two-part variance to allow expansion of dwelling space by converting an existing garage located less than 5' from one side property line and the construction of an attached garage less than 10' from the opposite side lot line. These variances are from Section 35-400, footnote 3b, of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) and are subject to the Standards for Variance set forth in Section 35-240 (attached). The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the.north and south by residences, on the east by East Twin Lake Boulevard, and on the west by Upper Twin Lake. Footnote 3b of Section 35-400 allows dwelling space to be less than 10', but not less than 5' from one side interior property line, provided all other setback require- ments are met, that there are no windows or doors along the wall less than 10' from the side lot line and provided there are no accessory structures in the side yard where a 10' setback is maintained. Staff have interpreted this last provision as requiring a 10' sideyard setback for any garage that is placed in the other side yard between the dwelling and the side lot line, when dwelling space is set back less than 10' in one side yard. The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to dwelling space 4' from the north side property line and to build a new garage 7' from the south side property line. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Variance for each part of this application. We will review and analyze each portion separately. Part A: Dwelling space less than 5' from side lot line. The applicant argues, first of all, that the 4' setback of the existing garage is a result of an improper action by the builder and the City Inspector in 1953 when the garage was built and the minimum sideyard setback for a garage was 5'. (The building permit for that garage does indicate a 5' setback, but a recent survey of the property reveals only a 4' setback). Secondly, he argues that the topography of the lot places the garage below the street level and that water can drain from the street into the garage and from there into the lower level of the residence. Thirdly, the applicant argues that the existing garage space is unsuited to its use because it is too small to accommodate two regular size cars (part of the garage is only 14' deep). Finally, the applicant points out that the neighboring residence to the north is 50' to 60' away and there will be no detrimental effect on neighboring property as required by standard (d). In response to these arguments, staff acknowledge that the appliant has little control over an error made over 30 years ago. We would ask, however, whether this argument would seem as valid if the garage had been built only 1' from the side lot line or even over the side lot line? Difficulties of this type were taken into account in 1982 when the City amended its ordinance to allow expansion along an existing building line ( f:Qr 1 or 2 family dwellings) if that building line is set back at least 70% of the relevant requirement (Section 35-400, footnote 12) The proposed conversion of space, which incidentally was commenced -without permits and has been halted pending action on the variance request, does not really fall under the governance of footnote 12 of Section 35-400. 6-14-84 -1- Application No. 84019 continued However, we believe that that footnote does provide a guide as to what would con- stitute an unacceptable setback encroachment in this case. The existing 4' setback is more than 70% of the normal requirement of 5' and would, therefore, be considered an acceptable encroachment using this reasoning. The topography of the lot does appear to present some hardship in this case in that the applicant cannot feasibly raise the garage, which is attached to the dwelling, above the level of the street and reverse the flow of drainage. There may, however, be alternative ways of diverting drainage away from the structure beside the plan of the applicant to disconnect the driveway from the existing garage. The appli- cant's concern over the size of the existing garage cannot really be the basis for a variance hardship since City Ordinance does not require a two -car garage nor recognize it as a necessity. As to the effect, on surrounding property, we would reject the existing location of the neighboring residence as a basis for making a favorable finding with respect to standard (d). As long as the neighboring property owner has the right, under ordinance,to place dwelling space as close as 5' or garage space as c ose as 3' from the property line, the detrimental effect must be guaged on the basis of those property rights not existing conditions. Neverthe- less, we concur that the effect of the proposed variance would not noticeably injure those rights. In general, staff feel that standards (a), (c), and (d) can be said to be met. However, it is difficult to find that standard (b) regarding uniqueness is met in light of the large number of garages that have been built less than 5' from a side lot line since the setback requirement was changed to 3' in the 1960's. Moreover, we are not prepared to offer or recommend any ordinance change to allow dwelling space as close as 3' from a side lot line. The ordinance change which allowed a 5' setback for dwelling space on one side was not supported by a community survey; nor was it arrived at quickly by the City Council. The Commission may, of course, wish to consider or recommend such an ordinance amendment as a means of resolving this and other similar situations. Because the present situation does not seem unique to us, we cannot recommend approval of this part of the variance application. Part B: Garage setback of less than 10' on south side. Regarding the second part of this application, the applicant states that a garage meeting a 10' sideyard setback on the south side would be only 17' wide (too small for a double garage) and that a single garage is inadequate for a house with 5 bedrooms. A 20' wide garage would have a sideyard setback of 7.4' at the closest corner. Mr. Guider states that the hardship is created by a pie -shaped lot. If the lot were rectangular, no variance would be required since the front of the garage is 11.3' from the south side lot line. He argues that there would be no detrimental effect on the public welfare or neighboring property because there is a garage between the neighboring dwelling and the common property line. He concludes by saying that denial of the variance would be an extreme hardship for him because a 17' wide garage would be inadequate for his home. He adds finally, that he has worked to improve his property and that his property taxes have increased accordingly. Staff agree with most of these arguments as far as they go. It is true that the shape and topography (a detached garage behind the house would be below the 100 yr. flood level of Mr. Guider's lot prevent him from building a two -car garage. 6-14-84 -2- Application No. 84019 continued It is still a question of whether the lack of an extra garage stall constitutes a hardship or a mere inconvenience. The circumstances of this case, taken together, are fairly unique. We also agree that no detrimental effect should take place since, under normal circumstances, a garage could be as close as 3' from the side lot line and the minimum resulting opening between garages in this case would be 10', ample for reaching the rear yards. It does not appear, however, that the hardship of being unable to have a two -car garage (if that is a hardship) south of the dwelling is unrelated to the original decision of the owner to put the dwelling where it is and an attached garage on the north side. It is partly caused by the shape and topography of the lot in conjunction with ordinance requirements and partly caused by the historical circumstance of the house's location, a circumstance created. by someone formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. On its own merits, the second part of this variance request may be justified, depending on what is judged to be a hardship and what is ultimately causing that hardship. C. Considering both parts. It should be obvious that these two parts of Application No. 84019 are very much related. Part (b) is definitely subordinate to part (a). If part (a) is not approved, then the existing garage must remain a garage (and the remodeling begun will have to be reversed). If the existing garage remains, there would probably be little need for an additional garage on the south side of the dwelling, thus obviating the need for part (b) of the variance. It might be feasible to add a dwelling addition to the south of the existing residence and leave the garage a garage. This would require no variances at all. Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Guider has applied for a Rental Dwelling License for a lower living unit.Staff have not determined whether a legal nonconforming duplex does exist on the property. If the property is considered to be a two-family dwelling, it is a nonconforming use in the R1 zone. As such, it may not be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by the use in 1968 when it became noncon- forming (Section 35-110,subsection 1). Therefore, the addition of a garage would not be allowed under any circumstances except if the property reverted to a single- family dwelling or the land were zoned R2 and the two-family use became conforming. This application is clearly very complex and staff are not prepared to give a firm recommendation at this time. In many ways, it seems that what the applicant wishes to do is reasonable, will increase property value, and will not be detrimental to anyone else. Nevertheless, he cannot do so without violating the letter of the ordinance. The Commission is urged to consider this matter carefully in light of the circumstances of the case and the Standards for a Variance. We will try to respond to any questions at Thursday night's meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 6-14-84 -3- City Of u-)rook_lyn Center lannin- Division From: Joan 1',,. Guider 5115 E. Turin Lake 31vd. 3rooklyn Center, Tin. 5511.29 de: Dequest for variance for building- permit at 5115 E �Tain Lake 31vd. , ;jrooklyn Center. Dear Qir: I do hereby request a variance to the City of 3rooklyn Center building ordinances for the building; of a garage and the remodeling of an existinggarage at 5115 E. Turin Lake :�lvd.. in your city. I hereby request the variance in two parts. Fart ;`1-to re- model an existing attached t-arage on the north end of my home. This n-arage will be remodeled into a familyroo-n. the variance requested. is a 5 foot setback requirment for a dwelling;. This garage is currently setback 4 foot from the north property line. 'phis would be a 1 foot setback violation of the cur:r- �}- tl ordinance. Part j2-is that I request to build an attached garage on the southside of my dwelling. I am requestir_- n variance on the 10 foot setback requirement for this rrtxl ca;ure. nhe reasors that I feel these variances should be -).'_1_owed. arC a.;, follows. On the remodeling of the existing garage: (1) at the time the dT,relling was build. the ordinance ;sated that there Must be a 5 foot sebac_!� on the g-ara;e. I feel that if that ordinance had been followed by the builder at that tune, the ;arage .could. have been setback 5 feet. In refer- ence to the Standards And, Procedures For Zoning Ordinance Variances ;`C- she alleged hardship is r. elated_ to the require- ments of the ordinance and has not been created_ by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.. I feel that this hardship was created by the builder and. the city inspector at that time. If the building had been inspected properly at that time it T-:ould. not have been alloyed to be build less that 5 foot fror. the property line. If this had. happened_ I Would be in compliance with the 5 foot setback requirment for a dWellin and not in need of a variance, (2.) the level of the existing garage is belo.7 that of the street causing a water problem. At time of heavy rain the water will run from the street into the garage, down the basement steps and into the basement, (j) the size of the garage is only 19 feet wide and. 14 feet long; atone point and 22 feet long at a second point. I feel that the 7ara7e in its present condition is too small to handle the vehicles that would accompany a dwelling of this size. I have considered remodeling of this garage and find that the costs would outweigh the benifits. Per Standards And =roced_ures For Zoning Ordinance Variance (d)-the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other lard or improvemnts in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. This is an existing garage and the remodeling would not be detrimental to the public welfare. There are no windows or will windows be placed on the northsid.e of this room .�Thich will not violate the privacy of my neighbor who is located approximately 50 to 60 feet from the pronierty line. On the building of an attached garage on hhe southside of my home: (1) I feel that if I build a ,^-arage in coiipliance with the existing ordinance it would only be 17 foot wide, and. too small for the existing; di -Telling, ';y home consists of 5 bedrooms, 2 and a half baths and a single car Barake would be inadiquate for this size of a dwelling. If permitted to build a. 20 foot garage I feel that this would be more compatible to the size of rry hone. If allo;•Ted to build a 20 foot garage I ,•Tould. be in violation of the 10 foot setback requirement on one cornor of the ^-arable only. This cornor would be seback 7.4 feet. This would be on the southwest cornor of the garage. The southeast cornor would be seback 11.3 feet, more that what is required in the existing ordinance, (2) rer Standard And. Procedures F'or Zoning Ordinance `Tariances YA-Because of the particular physical surroundings, shave, or topokraphical condition of th-� -I,;; * . ,' r , land involved, a particular hardship to the owner S-Tould result, as d.istinmushed. from, a mere inconvenience, if t-ze strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The reason_ for the variance rec_ues t is that the land on which t1: e r;ara-e would si-t is, pie shapped. If the land were not pie chapped I would have a setback more that what is required by the ordinance. In this situation I ,could need the variance due to the closeness of only one cornor of the arage. The averar-e setback of the entire ^ra, e T-ould be approl imately 10 feet. (3) per Standard And Procedure 'or toning Ordinance iarian_ces L-^ham kranti= ; of the variance trill not be detrimental to the infulic ?:elfare or Injurious to other land or improve- "Ic is in the neighborhood. in which the parcel of land is locate('. 1 feel that if this variance could be granted that it would not be detrir:,ental to the public Trelfe:' or injurious to other land or improvements in the neig-! orhood.. rPhe nei� hbor to the south of me is setback to an extent w1 ich the bui ldin's of this gara e would not interfere with his 1]r iva Cy. :y neighbor's ,garage i S also :)laced between our d.Tellinl;;s. :=e �crould not be able to see my � ara -e from. the inside of his home. This neighbor Ala^ been granted a setbac'r requirment fron the street by the City of ?r0ol-�lyn center. I feel that i f this variance rTould not be `ranted it would be an extreme hard shi?P for itte for I would be build in;~ a -arar7c that Would not .�eet the needs of this d?Telling or -!__y farily. 1 feel that if these variances would be Era:�.ted my property value will increase. I n:-ve wo.r_' ed on my home for the last 3 years increasinM its value. I moved into this dvTellinC approlri .a t- ely 6 Nears aco. At that time I was payi n =.., 85. 00 per year ta.:es . .l_ art now -�)avin- her year. `'his increase is due in pari. to L, -acreased value that I have m^de u�or_ it. I t^ke pride i�a Y.iy home and feel it is an asset to the City Of 3roo',.lyn Center. Sincerly; f phn .. Guider J _-,- ------,----r.. _ _ � � r •,� / � , =, / ,� �'i�i �,r ti,1�, ,�1?' tit,. �.1._� •k ry T 1 ��r'�RT - - ` y� 1\ -If . 1 U �— -�-Z 4 - X ' � —rLr— — -a f R 5 { '�,?� 4AE� PARK > (l xs ~ LJ Ui a ar F - - - �/` ST _ - - APPLICATION ha 84019HAPPY H OLLOW ui I �r LL .12 . ................ !s ' 1 i 4 .ai d�'�'% ' ,i� ll:I tl ;.11 % � �,%�V 1\ s"'/ -r 1 n, '�P� � r ` F.r,•. ��r;. r _. i '.i1.. li. tom` �� .. ��� j �7 4t'` :�r� I_�'___...._..._...1.F�� :.__,. .� _ ., f � � ,..•c.. . arooaww:w.,.. .,...e- �';'+.,rurroae-. Mex�!wR�'O'� ,sew.., a:.a+�i.w � `k � I � � �1 �•r'� I !.,� - dO fQ7 I of t m L co gy V �8��° v 01 „t N �, ��'•d� 1+� i��,� yr oge , . N M 09 s to o r; 9y$ v � k r t jnofuo,J V--� Ccc o� d7 t .. +ia�iaed H saw 5£Z6 " ON 6ab UUM