The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC82030 - 8/12/82 - 5700 Camden AvePLA.AING COMMISSION FILE C&.eCKLIST File Purge Date: y�B 9s 1) FILE INFORMATION Project Number: 8�a3o PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: /p - 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 Tyke Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council .7 City Vault City Vault Number Location City Vault City Vault City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82030 Applicant: Marie Reyes Location: 5700 Camden Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a two -car garage to be located 25' 6" from the front property line, instead of the 35' required. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing single -car garage to possible living space set back only 3' 3" from the north side interior property line. The setback deficiencies would result from the addition of a two -car attached garage to the west side of the existing structure, while converting the existing single -car garage on the north side of the house to either a storage or recreation room. (A recreation room is considered dwelling space which must normally be set back 10' from side interior property lines, or 5' on one side of the house if there are no doors or windows). The lot in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by I-94 on the east, by 57th Avenue North on the south, by Camden Avenue North on the west, and by a single- family residence on the north. There exists, along the south side of the property adjacent to 57th Avenue North, a highway easement preventing access to the property from 57th Avenue North. Therefore, access must be gained off Camden Avenue North. A garage could perhaps be added on the south side of the house, but would require a substantial variance from the side - corner setback requirement and would very probably encroach into the highway easement. Relative to the proposed garage location, staff do not recommend this alternative. Another option is to expand the existing single -car garage by extending it eastward to the front setback line and westward to the area behind the house, resulting in a "tandem" garage. This appears to staff to be a feasible alternative. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she argues that: -The orientation of the access has changed from old U. S. 169 to Camden Avenue North. -The house was placed on the site long ago, probably prior to adoption of a Zoning Ordinance. -The new garage would help re -orient the house to Camden Avenue North and would constitute an aesthetic improvement to the property and to the neighborhood. -Locating the garage elsewhere would involve long, circuitous drives and removal of trees. -The circumstances are unique, involving an older site which has changed in orientation over the years. Mrs. Reyes also points out that neighboring property owners do not object to the requested variance. In reviewing applications for variance from the literal provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall, according to Section 35-240, determine whether the following standards 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. 8-12-82 -1- Application No. 82030 continued (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 improvements in the neigh- borhood in which the parcel of land is located. Staff do not feel that the standards for a variance are necessarily met in this case. The option of building a tandem two -car garage within setback limitation is feasible and constitutes no more than an inconvenience in fulfilling the applicant's desires for more garage space. The applicant's situation is not unique, moreover. There are numerous homes within Brooklyn Center which have single car garages set back 5' or less from the side lot line and 35' to 40' from the front lot line. If all these are entitled to a similar variance, the front yard setback requirement would become almost meaningless. There have been two previous Planning Commission Applications (No. 68053, approved; 78064; denied) which posed questions quite similar to those raised by this appli- cation. The first (68053) pertained to the property at 5831 June Avenue North involving an attached garage to be set 30' from the front property line, with the house set back 35'. In this case, the variance was granted because other garages along the same block were also set back less than 35'. There was also a steep grade behind the proposed garage location. In the present case, there is a slight downward grade change behind the existing house, but it is staff's judgment that the steepness of the grade is not such as to create a hardship if the applicant were limited to building a tandem garage. Application No. 78064 was a request to allow a carport, erected without a permit, to continue in the front yard setback area. The applicant contended it would be impossible to construct a detached garage elsewhere on the premises because of the placement of existing trees. The variance was denied on the grounds that it did not meet the Standards for a Variance with respect to hardship and uniqueness. In the present case, the option of a detached garage behind the house was considered by staff, but can probably be rejected on the grounds that there is a substantial drop-off in the rear yard. There is also the question whether a variance must be granted to allow construction of a garage, or for a two -car garage as opposed to a one -car garage. Garages are not required under City ordinances. Application No. 68053 involved a property with no garage and with circumstances that would have made meeting the setback require- ment difficult, though not impossible. Since there is presently a garage on the property in question, it cannot be the case that meeting the setback will eliminate the possibility of having a garage. In brief, staff feel that the Standards for a Variance are not met on the following grounds: (a) The circumstances (a one car garage set back 3' from the north side lot line) are not unique at all. Many, many homes have similar circumstances. 8-T2-82 -2- Application No. 82030 continued (b) Meeting the setback by building a tandem garage, as opposed to a standard side -by -side two -car garage, does not constitute a hardship, but merely an inconvenience. (c) Although the property has been affected by changes to the right- of-way on the south and east, these changes were not caused by the ordinance; nor do they prohibit compliance with the ordinance. (d) The proposed variance probably would not be detrimental to sur- rounding property, except in its eroding effect on general set- back standards. It should also be noted that the proposed layout submitted shows a rather large blacktop turnaround area in the front yard, which would allow less than the normal 15' greenstrip required for parking areas. It should be made clear that any action on the variance request does not constitute acceptance of this proposed turnaround. We have not addressed in this report the separate question of whether dwelling space should be allowed less than 5' from the side interior property line. We do not recommend such a variance. In fact, the likelihood that such a further variance would become effective if the proposed plan were accepted is another reason for denial of the application. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 8-12-82 -3- 9 1 1 4 /.6/ / � 171 AW s 6 n •l o . e a u o G a c n_ O � o a � o ✓ nro a 3 � � P S N4 7 o s !k ti r R t e , CnnL "' ra m a t, 4-4, \ N, 1 1 t • / lam: � (,'./�O`.u,✓' �f 'n D r F6 p O d ; M r.+ w Cb I,", #82 tU � a a ol z U v io 1 _lC J II