Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC74020 4-25-74 315 70th AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: � 115 95 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 74o2o applcato, withdrawn PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: 'RI PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans.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 Minutes: City Council Document Type Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council 44"c'ravin City Vault 'VJ � City Vault Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault MEMO TO: D. G. Poss, City Manager FROM: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: April 25, 1974 SUBJECT: Proposed Construction by Steven L. Boone The following is an account of the events which culminated in a heated exchange with Steven L. Boone earlier today relative to his proposal to build a home at 70th Avenue and West River Road. 1. On Wednesday, April 17, Mr. Boone came into the office and told me Will Dahn had suggested he talk with me regarding a new home he was proposing to build at the above location for Mr. Jim Denn. He generally discussed the philosophy of not encouraging curb cuts or driveways off of Lyndale Avenue North, and stated he had discussed this with the Mayor, who had affirmed this philosophy. He also indicated that he had learned from the State Highway Department there was no immediate plans to widen Lyndale Avenue North thereby cutting into the lots on either side. He also discussed the fact that he had built several rather expensive homes in that area and this was probably one of the last lots which he would be building a custom home on in the area. 2. Mr. Boone then presented a survey of the subject lot which is slightly trapezoidal in shape with a front yard width of 93-1/2 feet, a rear yard width of 80 feet, West River Road side yard width of 145.6 feet and an interior lot line width of 145 feet. He also informed me that the owner was a Leonard Lindquist, and he stated that he and Mr. Lindquist were determined that "this time the City would have to let us build" . At the time he did not expand upon that statement but he did present a plot plan for a 70 foot by 26 foot home located on the parcel. The attached garage to the home was located at the north end of the parcel with access onto 70th and the building was set back the required 50 feet from the major thoroughfare --West River Road. It was plainly evident that because the structure was set parallel with the 50 foot setback line, there was an encroachment into the easterly side yard setback of about 2 - 2-1/2 feet at the southerly end of the house. Actually the encroachment started at approximately midway along the length of the structure and widened to the 2-1/2 foot maximum. The house was situatedin such a way that the required 35 foot front yard setback was provided off of 70th Avenue and the required 40 foot rear yard setback was provided at the southerly end of the property. Mr. Boone Mr. D. G. Poss -2- April 25, 1974 stated that he felt the 2-1/2 foot variance was warranted since it: (1) encroached into the owner's own property; (2) the neighboring property consisted of back yard area; and (3) would be permitted if that end of the structure were the, garage, which was located at the other end, however, to be consistent with general City policy encouraging access onto side street rather than Lyndale Avenue. 3. I told Mr. Boone that while I agreed with the philosophy of the policy encouraging access onto side streets rather than the main thoroughfare, the encroachment by the dwelling was actually due to a designed width of the house. I said that in that context Mr. Boone was creating the "hardship" situation and it was actually a matter of inconvenience rather than bonafided hardship since a narrower dwelling would be permitted, such as one 24 feet wide. I acknowledged that there was somewhat of an irony involved in that if a garage was located at that end, it would be permitted to come within three feet of the lot line and that I appreciated his stated concern for the policy of having access onto the side street. I suggested that overall the most desirable design would be to narrow the house and leave the garage at the north end. 4. Mr. Boone became quite insistent that it was necessary to build the 26 foot wide dwelling in keeping with his and his prospective customer's preference in that the dimensions of this house were consistent with other custom built homes in the area. He stated that,in his opinion, the 2 - 2-1/2 feet was relatively inconsequential, particularly since it involved the subject property and was not physically encroaching into anyone else's land. He stated that there was no question in his mind that a variance was warranted, and he noted his consistent cooperation with the City, apparently referring to a number of homes he has built. 5. I told him that there was no merit for the variance because of the hardship criteria and, furthermore, there would be substantial undesirable precedent in this case. He insisted on his right to file for a variance and made passing reference to 1973 Planning Commission Application involving Yesnes Con- struction Company. He also stated, not in jest, that he could have taken a building permit for this house and have proceeded to build it as proposed with this office "never knowing the difference" . 6. Mr. Boone filled in an application for a variance request and submitted the fee and the above documentation despite my admonition that there was no way the City could recommend approval and, as a matter of fact, would strongly recommend disapproval. Mr. D. G. Poss -3- April 25, 1974 7. Shortly thereafter I brought the matter to your attention and you confirmed what I had discussed. with Mr. Boone relative to merit for a variance. 8. The next day when I was out of the office Mr. Boone called and left a message with Lillian to the effect that a physical staking of the property had shown a variance would only be for two feet and that the prospective customer, Mr. Denn, had decided he would just as soon encroach into the 50 foot front yard setback rather than the 10 foot side setback. 9. That day I attempted to contact Mr. Boone, having further considered the matter and determining that I had improperly accepted the application for variance so I could inform him that the application would be considered withdrawn and his fee would be refunded. I was unable to get a hold of him until today when he returned my call at approximately 8:30 this morning. 10. I informed him of the above and he became quite accusatory as to my seemingly arbitrary and inconsistent judgment. I told him that I was in error my even accepting his application and he stated that that wasn't the question but rather one of interpretation of the ordinance. I recited to him the ordinance provisions and he continued to challenge my in- terpretation of that. I told him that there was recourse if he felt he had grounds to challenge my interpretation in that he could request an appeal but I told him the ordinance was very clear and that it was also evident the variance standards could not be met in his case. 11. At this point he became quite heated and disturbed and made a number of telatively irrational unrelated accusations against the City, as well as the City Manager. He stated that he in effect had expected something like this would happen all along and that it was another indication that Don Poss was out to get him. He decried the dictatorial approach of the City Manager in "arbitrarily and capriciously" interpreting the ordinance particularly in his case in that he and certain other unnamed persons were fed up with it. He stated that this was a "last straw" and that the City Manager's days were numbered in City Hall because apparently through the influence of himself and Mr. Denn in the community, the City and the City Manager's tactics would be exposed and things would be set right. 12. Mr. Boone continued with allegations to the effect that he should have gone ahead and taken a permit ostensibly meeting the setback requirements and then building the house as he desired and, furthermore, that he might Just go ahead and build it anyway. I told him that that would not be possible since we could not issue a permit for that and that we would be checking the setback of the structure at the time of construction. He Mr. D. G. Poss -4- April 25, 1974 stated he was making reference to just building the thing anyway and I responded that in that case it would be immediately shut down. His response was anybody trespassing on his private property would be as good as dead, and that he could build anything he wanted on his own land. He made some rhetorical inquiry into what the hell business the City had in telling him or anyone else what they could do, particularly since it was the result of wild dictatorial tactics by the City Manager. 13. I commented to Mr. Boone that I did not feel he truly meant what he said and definitely would not want to be quoted as saying it. He told me that he "damn well did want to be known as saying it because it was about time somebody did something about the situation at City Hall" . 14. He then proceeded to irritate me, quite frankly, to the point where I became quite heated in my remarks in that he made patronizing comments that I was merely a mouthpiece and he felt sorry for me and sympathized with me because I was just doing my job. He said he knew who the real culprit was and could forgive me since I was just working there. I told him what the ordinance provided. I told him what my decision had been and I told him that his money would be refunded. As I again explained to him the prerogative he had as a matter of appeal, he stated that didn't matter because "that's that" and he "understood what really the situation was". He then hung up and terminated the discussion. 15. I proceeded to direct the Finance Department to prepare a refund of his $15 and I also received a call from Mayor Cohen at approximately 11:00 . The Mayor said he had received a call from Representative McArthur rela- tive to the situation and he stated he was pretty sure what it was all about. He said he simply wanted to know what the ordinance requirements were regarding setbacks and I so informed him. He said it confirmed what his position had been with Representative McArthur, that apparently the problem as it were was being caused by Mr. Boone and his preferred design and not because of the lay of the land. Mayor Cohen also indicated that he had called or was going to call Mr. Denn and suggest that he contact you or myself as to what the situation was in fact. The Mayor also asked if Mr. Boone had made any reference during our discussion as to the fact that he was a member of the Brooklyn Center Fire Department and I responded in the affirmative. In summary I feel that while the basic issue here of the confusion and inconvenience caused by the submission of an application could have been avoided if I would had appropriately refused to accept it last week, I feel the basic concerns, suspicions, or fears that Mr. Boone has at the root of his anger go beyond this particular question. As a matter of fact, in past dealings wth Mr. Boone I have found this to be his general demeanor and attitude towards affairs with the City.