Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC69026 - 4/24/69 - 5332 4th StreetPLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: 1'12195 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 6902(. 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 Ranae Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Type Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council 14h'4/4.9 City Vault sled City Vault ����69 tabte�d Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application Application No. 69026 Street Location of Property 5332 North 4th Street Legal Description of Property Owner Robert Schultz Address 5332 - 4th St. No. Telephone No. 588-2211 Applicant Same Address Telephone No. Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval x Other Description of Request Building Plan approval Reason for Request Reconstruction of enclosed swimming pool. Fee $ 10.00 Receipt No. 27107 Applicant April 18, 1969 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration .)-IZ-6- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approved Denied this subject to the ing conditions COUNCIL ACTION day of ,19� Chai Approved Denied this day of 19 ;-with the following,amendment Clerk NEMORMUM REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 69026- - - - - - MAY 12, 1969 Property located at 5332 4th St. North- Robert Schultz The Members of the City Council visited the above property on Saturday MV 10th. Present at the visatation Were Councilmen Leary, Fydberg, Willard, Mayo Coheh; Absent Councilman Heck. The Council noted the following items: 1. That the property abuts the freeway right of way to the Rear Property Line ( East ). 2. That Multiple Dwelling abuts to the South Property Line. 3. That Single Family Residential abuts to the North Property line. 4. That the property depth according to the owner was 3251 before the taking for the freeway. 5. That the Swdmming Pool was installed prior to the freeway taking according to the owner. 6. That he was told before he built the pool that the freeway would only take a "corner" of the property by the Highway Department. 7. That the present depth as paced off by Councilman Will#rd was approximately 180' from the boulevard line. B. That the width of the property according to the owner is 641. Conclusions noted at the Sites A. The Council would have to be certain the new roof structure would be safe. i. Statement from Standard Iron & Wire attesting to the bearing load the joists would support. ( This was supposed to have been sent to Mr. Murphey according to the owner from Standard Iron ). ii. Specifications from the supplier and/or manufactuer of the fiberglass Panels he is intending to use for the roof. ( He will get this information from Keelcr Steel, the local distributor ). B. The determination of the retroactive Non- Conforming Use i. That no permit was required for installing the pool at the time it was built. ii. That the building of the walls was done without permit, but by itself would have been no more than possibly a fence. iii. That the placing of a roof did make the structure then an accessory building. south C. The question of the appendage structure to the mrxt of the Swimming Pool Structere that houses his boat, riding mower, etc. i. This structure had a very poor looking appearance and looked not the best structually, but did en- close the above noted equipment. ii. rimer was agreeable to removing or rebuilding as we would direct. This I believe represents the collective comments of the individual Councilman in attendance and were not debated as to their respective merit in application to the instant application. This would }provide the base for the discussion as to the eventual disposistion of the application. MEMO TO: Don Poss, City Manager FROM: J. R. Murphey, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 69026 DATE: April 28, 1969 I have reviewed Application No. 69026 submitted by Robert Schultz for approval of site and building plans for repair and replacement of the roof over a privately owned swimming pool at 5332 - 4th Street North with the following conclusions. It is the purpose of Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the regulation of buildings, structures, and land uses and to specify those circumstances and conditions under which those buildings structures, and land uses which adversely affect the maintenance, development or use and taxable value of other property in the district in which they are located shall be permitted to continue. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of zoning districts that those non -conforming buildings, strucutures and uses which substantially and adversely affect the orderly development or taxable value of other property in the district not be permitted to continue without restrictions. It would seem unreasonable and perhaps confiscatory to pre- vent the continued use of an existing building or structure that has substantial value and is or can be made structurally sound even though that building or structure did not lawfully exist at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. A building or structure, all or substantially all of which is designed or intended to house a use which is permitted in the district in which it is located, and which building or structure is damaged by fire or other casualty to the extent that the cost of restoration shall not exceed two thirds (2/3) of the value of the building at the time of the calamity should be allowed its continued existence. It is my opinion that whenever the Zoning Administrator shall find that a use not included in the ordinance is substantially similar to a use regulated therein or when the height, bulk or location of a building does not adversely affect the maintenance, development or use of other property in the district, he may declare such a use or buildings to be a non -conforming use with all the obligations and privileges of maintenance or restoration of such use or building. MEMO TO: Don Poss, City Manager FROM J. R. Murphey DATE: May 5, 1969 SUBJECT: Robert Schultz, 5332 - 4th Street North My earliest knowledge of the swimming pool structure on the above property was the day after the 1965 tornado. Don Stark, who was then Chief Building Inspector and I made an inspection of the tornado area in the southeasterly corner of Brooklyn Center and found many roofs had been blowenoff, structural damage to porches, etc., were noted and the swimming pool structure in question had been severely damaged. At that time, Mr. Stark made the comment that these people have enough trouble now and se -sire fairs we are not going after them for building permits. The swimming pool building was damaged so badly at that time that it was not possible to determined how it was constructed or from what type of material. My next notice of the building was after the rebuilding had been done and I did not make a complete inspection. I just looked at the building and considered it to be mainly a sunshade and I really wasn't too concerned about it. I have no information as to the structural elements in the roof or whether they were strong enough to support 40 pounds per square -i-=h as required by Code. 1 Sometime between April 10 and April 15, 1969, Joe Prause discovered the pool building was being rebuilt and that the block walls were being built higher and that steel bar joists were being installed to support the roof. Joe and I went to the house later that same day and found no one home and the pool building locked and no work being done on it. I left my card in the door, asking the owner to call me. Mr. Schultz called and I informed him that a permit was required but because the building exceeded the allowable area for accessory buildings, special approval would have to come from the City Council. On April 18, 1968, a pencil sketch of the proposed building was submitted and an application for plan approval was filed. -2- The only other information I have regarding the whole matter is the things that Mr. Schultz had told me such as he felt that no permits were required for the rebuildings of a building that was damaged by storm and that this building had been there a long time and that we should permit it to be rebuilt and that it was negligence on our part for not having stopped construction of this long ago. There have been all kinds of statements and remarks made as to how this building was originally approved and why we did not notice it before and so forth, but I guess the reason it could go unoticed was its location in the rear of the property and also it was surrounded by trees, etc. BAKKE & KC>PP, INC. Structural Engineers 7601 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426 HAROLD P. BAKKE, P.E. TELEPHONE 544-8741 ELMER J. KOPP. P.E. April 21, 1969 iso9 Building Inspector City Hall Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Sir: At the request of Mr. Harold Ramsey, I am writing you regarding the capacity of the 16H4 steel joists as manufactured by Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc. My design of these joists have been checked by the Steel Joist Institute for compliance with its latest load tables and specifications. In addition, the SJI verified the strength of the joists by testing a number of joists selected by its representative. I am in a position, therefore, to certify that the design capacity of the 16H4 spanning 26'-4" is 51 PSF for a joist spacing of 4'-0". Yours truly, BAKKE AND KOPP, INC. Harold P. Bakke, P.E. Minnesota Registration #6246 HP B / s lb r