The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC73013 - 5/24/73 - 6521 Brooklyn BlvdPb.ANING COMMISSION FILE ChtCKLIST File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Project Number: y3a/3 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: C✓� 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 Tvoe Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Type Number Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council City Vault City Vault Location City Vault City Vault City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST CITY OF BrOOKLYN CENTER Planning Ccmmissicn Application Application No. 73013 Street Location of Property 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard Legal Description of Property Lot 3 Block 1 Northgate Addition Owner Mike Harrer Address 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard Telephone No. 535-2897 Applicant Same [address Telephone No. Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval x Variance Site & Bldg. Plans Special Use Other Permit Description and Reason for Request: Variance from Section 35-111 to permit construction of addition - needed due to size of family of homeowner Fee $ 10.00 Receipt No. 37269 ,applicant Date PLANNING C01,12VIISSION RECOV14ENDATION Dates of P. C. Consideration:I -% Approved Deni this J]62 day of UL3 'T 19, ct to the following conditions:_ — - ---- Ch rn,an Ar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Con:-Jideration: 1 (lay of L4 , l n �i ,�Z_ .1.P-rk `� 19- P.�NNING COMMISSION INFORMATION S03ET Application No. Applicant: Location: Request t BACKGROUM: 73013 mike Hamer 6521. Brooklyn Boulevard Variance The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 35-111 "nonconforming uses) to pemAt construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located in the P,--5 district. Section 35--111 provides that "a nonconforraing use of a building existing at, the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be extended ti-aroughout the building, pro- vided no structural alterations except those recpAred by ordinance: law, or other regulation are inade therein" it is the applicant's contention that a hardship is realized it that the nonconforming use provris.i.on does not allow for a needed expansion of the habitable portion of his single family dwelling. There are two fundamental issues which need to be examined: the expansion of a nonconforming use; and, a determination whether the applicant's contended hardship meets with ordinance standards for granting a variance. In terms of the nonconfo.-eming use question, this application on in principle, is not unlike that considered last year -which involved a parcel across the street 1.1application NTo. 72050, submitted by Clarence Dudley). . it is clear: in terms of the Comprehensive Plan that the intent of the nonconforming use provision is to lixti t existing uses to their existing status throughout a nonTal physical and economic life spin. in following„ it is :he premise of the Comprehensive Plan: to have such properties ult imtely evolve 4 ato the highest and best land use for 1-11w enhancement of community development. Thus, to the structural- alteration and addition to a nonconforming sirsgie family dwelling in ail t,- 3 district, would nerve to perpetuate and extend the origi.nal intended life of the subject use. Application Leo. 7301.3 Page 2 As noted In --he consideration o-f application No. 72080 (which was denied by the City Council), the Comrjr,?hensive Plan calls for a planned development cif the area on r.,)oth sides of Brooklyn Boulevard, soothe ly of s1-94o including the subject property. Relative to the standards for granting a variance, it is questionable as to w1hether the applicant can ;n fact es- tablish a hardship or uniqueness which has been created due to a l texal _eadi.s-ag of the ordinance. The application indicates It'hat the addition to the dwelling is needed due to the size of the homeowner's family. As to the actual need for the proposed expenaa.on,, it is recommended that the Coiranissioii determine whether there is an intent to proceed with a home occupation or business, given the location of the subject property. While each case mast be evaluated on its m^arils, a recomnen•- dation for ar+proval, cannot be made in this instance, given the ordinance a:eq i..r-ementss the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and established ComAssi on and Council policies re-- ga%xI i ng the further, --vice of nonconforming uses No Oq e Ko. l.. Pi-t-ANRUKIG COMMISSION INFOIRMATION SIRLET Application No. 73013 Appl i.caat a dike Harrer LOcati.ono 6521 nrt3ci,lyn Boulevard Request-. variance This item teas tabled at the May 24, 1973 meeti.na, fray the reasons outlined in the memorandum included in the August 2, 1973 agenda,. A possible ordinance awendm nt which would apparently resolve the 4ippl_icant ; s question iaj noted in the memo and appeurs on page 9 of the August. 2nd minutes. Recommerdat on for action aft the subject appli.cat.i.oin is for denial, in that the standards for a variance as_e nomet. Should the Conm-casion decide to recommend -he ordinance change,, that deci.sioia could Le conveyed to the Council in ocanjunction ,gith the application. of course, the applicant could withdraw the request and awaitCouncil disposition of Lhe proposed amend--. �— ment if the o dinai?CL% cha ge is not recommended, the app-i.c:at, ion will be racessed as us -cal. (AL'S. w It N!,�Y. N 0. Ao 41" 7 3