Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC78047 - 8/10/78 - 5946 Colfax AveF_ �...4ING COMMISSION FILE C"y FilePurgeDate: I2�8 95 FILE INFORMATION Project Number: 7BOA17 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: R I 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 8161,19, 8f 11178 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 11 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION 78047 Application No. Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 5946 Colfax Ave. North Legal Description of Property Lot C, R.L.S. 1271 Owner Josephine Bovy Address Same Phone No. 560-4767 Applicant Same Address Phone No. Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance Description of Request: Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg, Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Variance from sideyard setbacks to build 10' x 16' enclosed unheated porch addition. Fee $15.00 Receipt No. 48707 App scant s Signature /2 to PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dater of P.C. Consideration: Approved Denied this %e,CA day of � 19 subject to the follow- ing cond'tions: Cha man ------------------------------------------------ CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied _! this r day of 19 with the following amendment: Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Application No. 78047 Applicant: Josephine Bovy Location: 5946 Colfax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant is seeking a variance from the side yard setback requirement contained in Section 35-400 to build an approximate 10' x 16' enclosed entryway at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. The addition would encroach approximately 10 ft. into the 25 ft. side corner setback required for corner lots. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) explaining her request and out- lining her justification for the variance. Briefly, she notes that a patio door in the side yard of her split entry home has, in essence, become the main entrance. She points out that weather conditions often make this entryway hazardous, and she contends that a hardship would exist if she was not permitted to construct the en- closed entryway. She also adds that such construction would: 1. Make this main entrance safe for entrance and access during all kinds of weather; 2. Provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient; 3. Afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. This item was tabled by the Commission on August 10, 1978, and the staff was directed to further research the matter of a 1976 Zoning Ordinance amendment to, Section 35-400 (2) that allows "a single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures to be constructed to within 15 ft. of the side corner lot line on a residential corner lot which was of legal record on December 19, 1957 and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width." A map developed at the time this matter was being researched was also presented to the Commission showing the number and location of the lots affected by the amendment. The staff was further requested to determine the number of substandard corner lots created after December 19, 1957. There are approximately 47 substandard corner lots of record after this 1957 date, including the Bovy property. We were also requested to further research the intent of the 1976 Zoning Ordinance amendment. Research indicates that the December 19, 1957 date used in the ordinance language had to do with subdivision requirements establishing 90 ft. wide corner lots as the standard. Also, the side corner yard minimum setback requirement was changed from 15 ft. to 25 ft. around that time. The rational for the 1976 amendment was that the ordinance was working a hardship on properties of record prior to 1958 that could have been built upon using the old side corner setback requirement of 15 ft. It also seems clear that the amendment was not intended to address all substandard corner lots. To recommend approval of this variance would, in essence, be saying that the Comis- sion would be prepared to recommend a possible 46 more side corner lot variances in the future. Following the staff research, it is still felt, as was noted at the August 10, 1978 meeting, that the applicant does not meet the standards for variances contained in Section 35-400 (2) (attached). The applicant does not seem to meet the qualifications for a hardship, as opposed to a mere inconvenience, nor are the conditions of the variance necessarily unique to the parcel. 8-24-78 Application No. 78047 Page 2 There are some options available to the applicant, other than her proposal for an enclosed entryway in the side yard. One would be to construct a sidewalk leading from the driveway area to the front entrance of the home to discourage use of the side entry. Also it is my understanding that there is a door leading from the lower level of the home to the inside of the garage, in that it might be possible to design this area to provide access to the home. The Commission also requested draft ordinance language that might address the applicant's problem. A draft ordinance eliminating the December 19, 1957 date contained in the present ordinance has been developed and is attached. In essence, this ordinance language would allow all corner lots that are substandard, with respect to width, to be within 15 ft. of the side corner property line. This amendment should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in light of its ramifications. Generally, setback regulations have been established to, among other things, keep dwellings farther from dust, noise and fumes of the street; to add to the attract- iveness and comfort of a residential district; create a better home environment; reduce fire hazards; prevent buildings from cutting off light and air from adjacent dwellings; and provide visibility especially in the area of street corners. The question really becomes whether or not 25 ft. setback for corner properties is desirable, because the effect of the amendment would be to revert to the old 15 ft. standard for the most part. 8-24-78 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78047 Applicant: Josephine Bovy Location: 5946 Colfax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant is seeking a variance from the sideyard setback requirement contained in Section 35-400 to build an approximate 10 ft. by 16 ft. enclosed entryway/porch at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. The addition would encroach approximately 10 feet into the 25 ft. side corner setback required for corner lots. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) explaining her request and outlining her justificiation for the variance. She points out that because of the configuration of her split entry home, a patio door with steps leading to it from the driveway area has become the main entrance and exit to her home. She notes that ice and snow accumulate on the steps in the winter and rain makes it dangerously slippery as well. A visitor at her home broke his foot because of slippery conditions recently. Her contention is that a hardship exists if she is not permitted to construct the enclosed entryway, and that such construction would: 1) make this main entrance safe for entrance and access during all kinds of weather; 2) provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient; and, 3) afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. A copy of Section 35-240 (2) containing the standards for variances is also at- tached for the Commission's review. The standards allow for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforce - ment would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration after demonstration that all four of the qualifications are met. It is not felt that the request meets the qualifi- cations of a hardship, as opposed to a mere inconvenience, contained in the ordinance, nor are the conditions of the variance necessarily unique to the parcel, and are not common generally to other property within the same zoning classification. Recommendation Because it is felt that the application does not meet the standards for variances, denial of the variance request is recommended. It should be pointed out that Section 35-400 (2) states in part that " a single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures may be constructed to within fifteen (15) ft. of the side corner lot line on a residential corner lot which was of legal record on December 19, 1957, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width." Within the past month, a building permit was issued to a property owner to build a garage with an approximate 15 ft. side corner setback under this section of the ordinance. This lot was a substandard corner lot of approximately the same width as Mrs. Bovy's, but was a lot of record prior to December 19, 1957. Mrs. Bovy's property was not a lot of record until 1968, and because of this, a building permit could not be issued. The Commission may want to look at the ordinance provisions and discuss if they feel there are any seeming inconsistencies. Suggested Draft of Letter: From: Mrs. Josephine Bony 5946 Colfax Ave. North Brooklyn Center, Minn. To: Mr. Ron Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection City,of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Subject: Request for Building Permit to build an enclosure on the North Side of my residence, or if such permit cannot be granted, either consideration of a variance or ordinance change to permit such construction. I am requesting that permission be given to build a 101 x 161 enclosure, as per the attached drawing. The Patio door that leads onto the deck and stairs on the North Side of the House is actually the main entrance to the home. The front door provides the other main entrance and exit, but due to its distance from the street it faces Colfax Ave., it is not a practical access to the house. The entrance to the patio door, which face 59th1 Ave. North, leads right down to the driveway, and it is very easy t park the car in my own drive and use this entrance for entering, carrying in groceries and other items. It is also the best access for those visiting, and while there is another access through the garage, in case of emergency, the garage access and entrance is not the fastest way in or out, as the garage entrance winds up under the kitchen and only accessible from the living rooms area. The patio door access is the only way into the kitchen, and as stated before the way in which I carry in the groceries from shopping. Being that this is the main access, it has caused problems due to ice that can accumulate during the winter and during the rains, it also becomes very slippery. Last year a visitor of mine broke his foot as a result of the slippery conditions. To summarize, the need that I have for this addition is as follows 1. To make this main entrance safe for entrance and access during all kinds of weather. 2. To provide a barrier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient. 3. To afford privacy during the evening and hours of darkness from those passing by the street. Page 2 Should the present ordinances, as you have noted to me about the platting requirements of a certain date not permit the issuance of the building permit, I would renew my request to apply for a variance, or if a core appropriate method would be a change to the ordiance in question, that would be satisfactory with me, also. Whatever, method it takes to allow me to proceed the quickest would be the best, as the longer I wait, the more the costs go up, and it is my sincere desire to accomplish the building of this enclosure before The Fall weather sets in. I would appreciate any assistance that you can give me in this matter, as I fully do not understand the process of getting this matter resolved by having to appear before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Because of the change of City Ordinances as was mentioned to me, I would be denied to do what I feel is a reasonable project that will improve my home for me to live in, when someone else might be granted such permission if they are not subject to the Ordinance change in question. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call upon me. My home phone number is 560A-4767• My phone number at work is 542+V119- Yours Truly, M m �9 f n'� ys n r tag 5 Mw wo; a4hhh, i moI mm w MOM! 00 00 r Oo r.. �? r F. A PPLI G A TAON ,vo 79O V 7 a ,59 tm 6L/e n ve. 5 8 t h P ve n cc C, A/, do AUGUST 8, 1978 WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE 10 X 16 UNHEATED PORCH BEING PLANNED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE PATIO DOOR IS LOCATED FOR MRS. JOSIE BOVY 5946 COLFAX AVE. NO. BROOKLYN CENTER, MINN. .2 a -of J Tickler Date MEMO: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER To Date — From ,[J1 OF 001, 10,E 1 � 3� yco,0Z�- �0°.� •a) AVOID VERBAL MES AGES t GIRALO T COYNE n 41AYM 0 A PRASCH .�, �t n,�..AIrk AVF 4 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY r•�r, it:AHArt VA a'.ir,r; FP�j�jv;vhLA.� . I.A1U S[ It,lhaf►1w> • REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OI' MINNESOTA LICENSED BY ORDINANCE OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Minn-al-h-, Mjnw—i., 1I2H ., A. r.;A. .t'.,y, .t. :FF Fa'A•., 40 rF- , '' ► *urbrvor!5 Catif icate FI Af"1 .t.G LAiYP1KCE J . KR US Invoice F.E . 12r-• i O Leno+es Iron i � Sorle 1" - 30' %\ 11J � I i ,- t -ti T ti i f f� r• t TrFct Cs Registered LAnd Survey No. 1271, Files of the F,egistrt+r of Titles in Pnd for Herniepin County, k1unenctc. rub,jact to aptemerts We Hereby :ertify that this •s i true and co,rect representa- t;on of t survey of the boundaries of the above described Signed end end the location of Ail build;n s end visible encroach — �: 9 Ll1T St'RL'H;Y`; CCY�iF Lam' mrnfs. ,f any from or on said land •eyed by .rs th.s e:8th !ay of "ONtts'i~ t968 7w / z? 1w v I -04 �-yam C;'��