The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC80019 - 6/26/80 - 6417 Colfax AveP. NING COMMISSION FILE File Purge Date:9�— FILE INFORMATION Project Number: g0019 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 Tygee Date Ranoe Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission G/%��/�� City Vault Minutes: City Council ��,Bo City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST CITY OF PLANNING Ai'I'!_ICATION Application Ito. 80019 Please Print C1earl r' or Tvr,r-, Street Location of Property 6417 Colfax Avenue N. L::c,al Description of Property Lot 5, Block 1, Hohenstein's 3rd O:;ner John E. Maertens Address 6417 Colfax Avenue North Applicant same phone No. 561-7761 Al(ir'ess Phollo No. -type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval _ x Variance . Site & Bldg, Plan App oval Special Use Permit 0+rler: bescription of Request: Variance from Section 35-400 to allow -construction of an addition to a house with substandard rear yard area. gee $15.00 re�erp4 nu• 53577 r fippi 1r,'.n, ur e _ L- - a Da t1. o PLANNING COM!,.-iSSIO11�1 RLC0MI I:IDATrC.�q Date.- of P.C. Consideration: Appr: ved - D�,�li ed t h i s _ _ day of — --- _ 19 , sirh jest ",`, the. f c-r l i rft, 1 CI-1 Y CO(:; (_ AG-TlkON Dates of Couric-tl Considoraticn: r 1;1,� i1 Approved Denied - this dwY Of _� _19, VV,-1ii h (I'lu follolii�o _.._.. atilt '1'�'i1L11 ( v `�- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80019 Applicant: John E. Maertens Location: 6417 Colfax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant seeks a variance from Section 35-400 to allow construction of an addition to the house located at 6417 Colfax Avenue North which has a substandard rear yard area. The existing house and garage were built on a 110' wide lot which extended from Colfax to Dupont Avenues and faced Colfax. This lot was subdivided in 1969 establishing a rear lot line not quite parallel to the house and garage and established.a rear yard area of 3602 sq. ft. Section 35-400 footnote 9 provides that "Interior residential lots shall have a minimum rear yard area of 30% of the total lot area, exclusive of permitted accessory strucures." Since the area of the lot (approximately 11 x 158) is 17,517 sq. ft., the minimum re- quired rear yard area equals 5,255 sq. ft. The deficiency is therefore 1,653 sq. ft. or 31%. The proposed addition to the house is 24' x 26' and would continue along the existing building line at a slight angle to the rear lot line resulting in a setback of 28.5' at the closest point (the rear yard setback is 25'). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) requesting the variance. The letter deals with the (setback -issue rather than area) and does not address the Standards for a Variance. The central issue presented by this application is whether a variance should be granted to allow the expansion of a structure which is nonconforming as to rear yard area. Typically, the Planning Commission and City Council have allowed the expansion of nonconforming structures (not uses) provided any new construction meets exist- ing setback requirements. The procedure for allowing these expansions has been through the variance procedure. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have distinguished between a structural nonconformity and a use nonconformity. Nonconforming structures have been allowed to expand, use nonconformity has not. While the proposed addition meets the setback requirement for rear yards, it continues a building line which fails to establish the required 30% rear yard area. Continuation of that building line, therefore, expands a nonconforming structure without changing the rear yard area already established. The request may also be construed basically as an expansion into the side yard which meets setback requirements. There is some difficulty in determining the area of rear yards for the purpose of applying Section 35-400 footnote 9 to the placement of structures or additions to structures on residential lots. A further complicating factor is that the existing lot was created after the house was built. That action established a substandard rear yard setback (then 40') with the approval and the acknowledge- ment of the City Council. (see minutes attached). In 1976, the rear yard setback requirement was changed to 25' from 40'. However, a 30% rear yard area requirement was added. So, the rear yard has been sub- standard under both the old and new ordinance requirements since 1969. One reason that the City Council accepted the substandard rear yard was so that the new lot created to the west would be 110' deep (the ordinance minimum) rather that the substandard 105' proposed initially by the owner. In light of this approval, it seems unreasonable to now require a greater setback of the addition to achieve a larger rear yard area. 6-26-80 -1- Application No. 80019 The Standards for a Variance (attached) generally seem to be met based on the following: a) A hardship would likely result if the addition to the house were made to the front where ample setback area exists. b) The conditions upon which the application for variance is based are unique because of the placement of the house on the lot and the previous history of the parcel. c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance. While the substandard condition resulted from a subdivision sought by the applicant, this result was approved and even increased by the City Council. They must, therefore, accept some responsibility for the existing situation. d) The granting of the variance will not be any more detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood than the previous variance relating to this property. We feel the judgment of the City Council in that case was proper and comprehends the proposed addition. Based on the above reasoning, approval of the variance is recommended. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 6-26-80 -2- 67 Z BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL R5 C 2 ■ APPLICATION NO. ■ ■-.---.80019 R 5 �1 94 E.B.'000 R 3,� 00 oo�? lit N EARL BROWN SCHOOL 'IRE HOUSE PAR of ----- FIRE > - STA. < - ws. Land Plonnin9 6875 Nr�fin *Gs ,VE. Land Sia WYy 7y Minnpowl s ) 2. Soiks Test ny ENGINEERING, INC. Minnesota Civil 6- A.1wki v/ A701.16066 Enyineern9 En ineers Sur ve ors LOT DVV- O��. • � ram.-. �� l7 i � .. �� .,,r . -- 267. 91 ,3 S i Iyam') � yt r" 4 r; ti• I � p! � 0 iJ z6.1 , 7.5 J 1 36.5 •��,. r � J k -n> T/m LOT5 'I'Dt T/O. ,1,, �.onn n, s mote faltAID 1 COYN[ 11 A RAYMOND A PRASCH ...6'ill,4AHoAr � •/ *Al 0 •. 1!I"Pi - ekOOKI.Yt1 FAkK. 141104 Rr.(IIKTCRF.h UNn1:R LAWS OF STATE OF MINNEROTA [JCENSEU JAY ORDINANCE OF CITY Of MINNLAI U1.1R g r-N JAI p /y .. ry ,_1,^.'.rlNl: .l: i,-,7Rf Ti-Ar4 10 Yf Ak', OF •'•'11.f.IAe t'+Ff•�,a Aal,r. AI%tt t•�t. j�o �X7erttf icf,lte •n•r:1 >�,F •rF YI•::, lief Hif•iCf IN TNf gal-1161 flAlll'I0; • -,11!r,(Ir'A rA'i AREA INVOICE # 2681 IF.F. 136-57 0 Dr,�I OTE5 I RCa C • FROP. t :.17 0 R tJ z6' 5 3 3- ''r1 bob N 158•0� -- -7 5, :;�:x;�; 1, :io`t:f:;:�.I1:'s ��?rii!) ,��T•PIC,;, :611 THS, 'PIE:iT 110 F -'-T T r:R: )F W. 1,.- by ,#,l;Iv Ih.l IN;, :1 a I.4n And inu.il ,.prnt.nl. /;... too A ,.,...y 4•1 11SI,a,,,,,1., ie1 ..f the abo.o dolcr,bod ,,,.1 1n.1 the lo,.I—n of .Il h,,Ad;ny, And ,il'ble vn,r,.ch 5..+•,1.d !y .+1 �hn c jtill dAY of liuld 1969. WT SURVEYS CoNIIIAtiY June loth, 1980 City of Brooklyn Center City Council 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy To Whom it may concern; We are writing to request a variance on our back property line in order to construct an addition to our home at 6417 Colfax Avenue North. The addition would be added to the south side of our house and would add some much needed living space to our home. We purchased this property in 1967. The house was built in 1915 and stands further back from the street than the newer homes in this neighborhood. In 1969 we requested and re- ceived a variance on the back line when the lot was subdivided. The addition we are planning would be about three feet closer to the back line than the variance allows for. This is because the property line slants instead of running parallel with the street and the house. There is no problem with the south side line as our property is wide enough to allow for the addition. John and Jennifer Maertens Ajji�J i